Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31803474›Full record

ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2019

Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study.

Mamta Ruparel, Samantha Quaife, David Baldwin, Jo Waller, Samuel Janes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Impact of Smokers' Information-Seeking Behavior on Smoking Cessation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  11. Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Delivering the unexpected-Information needs for PSA screening from Men's perspective: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Mamta RuparelLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8880-6567
Samantha QuaifeResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
David BaldwinRespiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Jo WallerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Samuel JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 164679Cancer Research UK 17976Cancer Research UK C7492/A17219Department of HealthWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals' specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described. Methods: In this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method. Results: Fatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the 'right' to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while false-positive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAgedDecision MakingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFocus GroupsHumansLungLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient Education as TopicQualitative ResearchTomography, X-Ray Computedimaging/CT MRI etclung cancer

Identifiers

PMID31803474
PMCPMC6890387

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.