Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32003822›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2020

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Robert J Volk, Lisa M Lowenstein, Viola B Leal, Kamisha H Escoto, Scott B Cantor, Reginald F Munden, Vance A Rabius, Linda Bailey, Paul M Cinciripini, Heather Lin and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02286713 (Promoting Informed Decisions About Lung Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 58 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT02286713 nacompletednot on this map

Promoting Informed Decisions About Lung Cancer Screening: Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorM.D. Anderson Cancer CenterRan2015 to 2020Enrolled516ConditionsLung Cancer, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Use CessationArmsPatient Decision Aid, Standard Educational Information, Follow-Up Assessments: Questionnaires
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Knowledge translation strategies to enhance lung cancer screening programme implementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Robert J VolkDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Lisa M LowensteinDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Viola B LealDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Kamisha H EscotoDepartment of Health Disparities Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Scott B CantorDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Reginald F MundenDepartment of Radiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Vance A RabiusDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Linda BaileyNorth American Quitline Consortium, Phoenix, Arizona.
Paul M CinciripiniDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Heather LinDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Ashley J HoustenDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Pamela Graef LuckettInformation & Quality Healthcare Inc, Ridgeland, Mississippi.
Angelina EsparzaHouston Department for Health and Human Services, Houston, Texas.
Myrna C GodoyDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Therese B BeversDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USFirst American (United States) · USHouston Health and Human Services Department · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DIANE BODURKA · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making. Objective: To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report. Results: Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecision Support TechniquesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationSmokersTomography, X-Ray ComputedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32003822
PMCPMC7042872
OpenAlexW3003770073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.