ArticleBMC public health2018
Lung cancer screening: assessment of health literacy and readability of online educational resources.
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 23 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung Cancer: A New Tool to Measure Literacy and Enhance Primary Prevention in Brazil.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- East-West Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening: Subsolid Nodule Prevalence, Interval Growth, and Decision-Making Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Effect of Informational Podcasts on Shared Decision-Making, Anxiety, and Patient Satisfaction in Hospital Visits: Intervention Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Is the HPV vaccine lottery system equitable under constrained vaccine supply? A cross-sectional study in China.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Navigating advanced lung cancer care, patient-physician alliance, cancer stigma, and psychosocial support in Asia-Pacific: perspectives from patients, caregivers, and physicians.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Precision Medicine in Lung Cancer Screening: A Paradigm Shift in Early Detection-Precision Screening for Lung Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Association of health literacy with cancer survival: a single-centre prospective cohort study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Improving lung cancer decision-making using a conversation tool (iDECIDE): a stepped wedge pragmatic clinical trial.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Hospital-to-Home Transitions for Lung Cancer Patients-A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professionals' Experiences.Nursing open · 2025Article
- A study protocol for a mixed-method environmental scan of contextual factors that influence lung cancer screening adherence.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- The Use of Podcasts as Patient Preparation for Hospital Visits-An Interview Study Exploring Patients' Experiences.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening update on drivers of disparities in screening eligibility.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Primary Care Physician Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Readability Assessment of HPV Vaccination and Cervical Cancer Information: A Systematic Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Lung Disease in Central Appalachia: It's More than Coal Dust that Drives Disparities.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2021Review
- Delving deeper into disparity: The impact of health literacy on the surgical care of breast cancer patients.American journal of surgery · 2020Review
- Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening: A Review.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening can reduce mortality but can be a complex, multi-step process. Poor health literacy is associated with unfavorable outcomes and decreased use of preventative services, so it is important to address barriers to care through efficient and practical education. The readability of lung cancer screening materials for patients is unknown and may not be at the recommended 6th grade reading level set by the American Medical Association. Our goals were to: (1) measure the health literacy of a lung cancer screening population from an urban academic medical center, and (2) examine the readability of online educational materials for lung cancer screening.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cross sectional study at a single urban academic center. Health literacy was assessed using three validated screening questions. To assess the readability of educational materials, we performed a Google search using the phrase, "What is lung cancer screening?" and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) formula was used to estimate the grade level required to understand the text.
resultsThere were 404 patients who underwent lung cancer screening during the study period. The prevalence of inadequate/marginal health literacy was 26.7-38.0%. Fifty websites were reviewed and four were excluded from analysis because they were intended for medical providers. The mean FKGL for the 46 websites combined was 10.6 ± 2.2.
conclusionsLow health literacy was common and is likely a barrier to appropriate education for lung cancer screening. The current online educational materials regarding lung cancer screening are written above the recommended reading level set by the American Medical Association.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.