ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019
Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
LEAD Pilot Study: Leveraging the Emergency Department to Address SDOH and Reduce Lung Cancer Screening Disparities
CLEAR-LUNG (Community-Level Effectiveness to Advance Reach in Lung Cancer Screening)
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Facilitators and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening during Long COVID: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Study Synthesis of Qualitative Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: A Framework-Driven Systematic Review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Pooled it
- Identifying Barriers and Strategies to Support a Community Navigator-Driven Approach for Lung Cancer Screening.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Development, Co-Design and Pilot Testing of Resources to Support Informed Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening in Australia: A Study Engaging Diverse Communities and Expert Healthcare Professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Influencing factors of low-dose computed tomography screening behavior among first-degree relatives of lung cancer patients based on the theory of planned behavior: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Differences in lung cancer screening outcomes and follow-up by patient, provider and place-based characteristics in Missouri and Illinois: A cross-sectional study.Research square · 2025Article
- Self-blaming as a barrier to lung cancer screening and smoking cessation programs in Italy. A qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
- Barriers and Facilitators Impacting Lung Cancer Screening Uptake Among Black Veterans: A Qualitative Study.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2024Article
- Factors influencing the intention for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations for lung cancer.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Article
- Changing recommendations for lung cancer screening: National Lung Cancer Roundtable member perspectives.Cancer · 2023Article
- Lung Cancer Screening: Implementation Challenges and Health Equity Considerations For the Western Pacific Region.JCO global oncology · 2023Review
- Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature.Respiratory research · 2022Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Factors Associated With Declining Lung Cancer Screening After Discussion With a Physician in a Cohort of US Veterans.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the lung cancer screening health belief scales.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation.PloS one · 2022Article
- Lung cancer screening: targeting the hard to reach-a review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Integration Through Connecting in Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method Studies.Western journal of nursing research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough new screening programmes with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer have been implemented throughout the United States, screening uptake remains low and screening-eligible persons' decisions to screen or not remain poorly understood.
objectiveTo describe how current and former long-term smokers explain their decisions regarding participation in lung cancer screening.
designPhone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide were conducted to ask screening-eligible persons to describe their decisions regarding screening with LDCT. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with conventional content analytic techniques. SETTING AND
participantsA subsample of 40 participants (20 who had screened and 20 who had not) were drawn from the sample of a survey study whose participants were recruited by Facebook targeted advertisements.
resultsThe sample was divided into the following five groups based on their decisions regarding lung cancer screening participation: Group 1: no intention to be screened, Group 2: no deliberate consideration but somewhat open to being screened, Group 3: deliberate consideration but no definitive decision to be screened, Group 4: intention to be screened and Group 5: had been screened. Reasons for screening participation decisions are described for each group. Across groups, data revealed that screening-eligible persons have a number of misconceptions regarding LDCT, including that a scan is needed only if one is symptomatic or has not had a chest x-ray. A physician recommendation was a key influence on decisions to screen. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsEducation initiatives aimed at providers and long-term smokers regarding LDCT is needed. Quality patient/provider communication is most likely to improve screening rates.
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.