Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31385463›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2019

Individual decision making about lung cancer screening: A conjoint analysis of perspectives among a high-risk national sample.

Margaret M Byrne, Richard J Thurer, Jamie L Studts

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Margaret M ByrneDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.ORCID 0000-0002-8143-4702
Richard J ThurerDepartment of Surgery and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Jamie L StudtsDepartment of Behavioral Science, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Moffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of Kentucky · USUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

Development of a Conjoint Analysis Instrument for Lung Cancer Screening DecisionsR21CA139371 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI BYRNE, MARGARET M · 2010 to 2011
$385k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA139371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is limited information available regarding preferences among high-risk individuals concerning LCS. In this study, we use a conjoint valuation analysis (CVA) to better understand which LCS attributes most affect LCS preferences. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe implemented a web-based nationally representative survey that included a full-profile CVA exercise. Participants were over the age of 45, had at least a 20 pack-year smoking history, and no history of lung cancer. The CVA instrument included five LCS attributes, and additional survey items collected demographic and psychosocial information.

resultsParticipants (n = 210) had a mean age of 61 (SD 8.5) years, approximately half were female (51.9%), and were racially/ethnically diverse. Average relative importance of the LCS program attributes was (from high to low): out of pocket costs (27.3 ± 17.7); provider recommendation (24.8 ± 13.4); mortality reduction (17.2 ± 8.9); false-positive rate (15.8 ± 10.4); and ease of access (14.8 ± 7.3). There was large variation among individuals, but few significant associations of propensity to screen with individual demographic characteristics. Average screening propensity across individuals (1-9 scale) was 3.63 ± 1.6, and average rates of individual scenarios ranged from 2.60 ± 2.00 to 5.57 ± 2.13, indicating low inclination for screening.

conclusionsWe found that overall propensity for screening is low in a high-risk population, and that out of pocket costs were of greater importance to potential screeners than mortality reduction or false-positive rates. Thus, individuals considering or eligible for LCS need additional education and support regarding the LCS landscape in order to achieve informed decision making.

Indexed as

AgedDecision MakingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvival Analysisdecision makinglung cancer screeningpatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID31385463
PMCPMC6745859
OpenAlexW2965217193

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.