Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30453929›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2018

Determinants of motivation to quit in smokers screened for the early detection of lung cancer: a qualitative study.

Ben Young, Kavita Vedhara, Denise Kendrick, Roberta Littleford, John F R Robertson, Frank M Sullivan, Stuart Schembri, Roshan das Nair, ECLS study team

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ben YoungDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kavita VedharaDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Denise KendrickDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Roberta LittlefordTayside Clinical Trials Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
John F R RobertsonDivision of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
Frank M SullivanSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK. fms20@st-andrews.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6623-4964
Stuart SchembriNinewells Hospital, Dundee, UK.
Roshan das NairDivision of Psychiatry & Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
ECLS study team
University of Nottingham · GBNinewells Hospital · GBUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe promotion of smoking cessation within lung cancer screening could lead to benefits for smoking-related disease and improve cost-effectiveness of screening. Little is known about how smokers respond to lung cancer screening and how this impacts smoking behaviour. We aimed to understand how lung cancer screening influences individual motivations about smoking, including in those who have stopped smoking since screening.

methodsThirty one long-term smokers aged 51-74 took part in semi-structured interviews about smoking. They had been screened with the EarlyCDT-Lung Test (13 positive result; 18 negative) as part of the Early Cancer Detection Test Lung Cancer Scotland Study. They were purposively sampled for interview based on their self-reported post-screening smoking behaviour. Eleven participants had stopped smoking since screening. Verbatim interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsTwo key overarching themes were interpretations of screening test results and emotional responses to those interpretations. Participants' understanding of the risk implied by their test result was often inaccurate, for example a negative result interpreted as an 'all-clear' from lung cancer and a positive result as meaning lung cancer would definitely develop. Those interpretations led to emotional responses (fear, shock, worry, relief, indifference) influencing motivations about smoking. Other themes included a wake-up call causing changes in perceived risk of smoking-related disease, a feeling that now is the time to stop smoking and family influences. There was no clear pattern in smoking motivations in those who received positive or negative test results. Of those who had stopped smoking, some cited screening experiences as the sole motivation, some cited screening along with other coinciding factors, and others cited non-screening reasons. Cues to change were experienced at different stages of the screening process. Some participants indicated they underwent screening to try and stop smoking, while others expressed little or no desire to stop.

conclusionsWe observed complex and individualised motivations about smoking following lung cancer screening. To be most effective, smoking cessation support in this context should explore understanding of screening test results and may need to be highly tailored to individual emotional responses to screening.

Indexed as

MotivationSmoking PreventionAgedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchScotlandSmokersSmokingSmoking CessationEarly cancer detectionLung cancerSmoking cessationTeachable momentThematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID30453929
PMCPMC6245764
OpenAlexW2901550283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.