ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2019
Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Recruitment preferences for lung cancer screening among 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN participants.BMC public health · 2026Trial
- Association between information overload, asthenopia, and depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with lung cancer: A computer-simulated network analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- It depends on where you stand on screening: health professionals' awareness, perspectives, and approaches to overdiagnosis in cancer screening - a qualitative interview study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Lung cancer screening experiences among patients with a smoking history and primary care providers: a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Experiences of health information-seeking among patients with cancer in China: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Self-blaming as a barrier to lung cancer screening and smoking cessation programs in Italy. A qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Influence of initial check, information exchange, final accuracy check, reaction information nursing on the psychology of elderly with lung cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Effects of pre-operative education tailored to information-seeking styles on pre-operative anxiety and depression among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A randomized controlled trial.International journal of nursing sciences · 2023Article
- The Impact of Smokers' Information-Seeking Behavior on Smoking Cessation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- European lung cancer screening: valuable trial evidence for optimal practice implementation.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- 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 · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.