ArticleCancer medicine2019
Individual decision making about lung cancer screening: A conjoint analysis of perspectives among a high-risk national sample.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening uptake and intention to screen: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
- Supporting community translation of lung cancer screening: A web-based decision aid to support informed decision making.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Trial
- Factors influencing participation in lung cancer screening among screening-eligible adults: a scoping review.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Review
- The needs and expectations of people eligible for lung cancer screening in Switzerland: A mixed method study.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Embedding a Choice Experiment in an Online Decision Aid or Tool: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Use of a mixed-methods approach to develop a guidebook with messaging to encourage colorectal cancer screening among Black individuals 45 and older.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- A narrative review of lung cancer screening in underserved populations.Current challenges in thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Conjoint Analysis: A Research Method to Study Patients' Preferences and Personalize Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- What is the effect of a decision aid on knowledge, values and preferences for lung cancer screening? An online pre-post study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Individual decision making about lung cancer screening: A conjoint analysis of perspectives among a high-risk national sample.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Brief Education and a Conjoint Valuation Survey May Reduce Decisional Conflict Regarding Lung Cancer Screening.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.