ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2022
Effective Educational Approaches to Training Physicians About Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review of lung cancer screening in underserved populations.Current challenges in thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Lung Cancer Screening: Implementation Challenges and Health Equity Considerations For the Western Pacific Region.JCO global oncology · 2023Review
- Analysis of Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening by Race After 2021 Changes to US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Guidelines.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Perceived effectiveness of cancer screening among family medicine and internal medicine physicians in the United States.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Characterizing the Design of and Emerging Evidence for Health Care Organization-Based Lung Cancer Screening Interventions: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
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
In 2013, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommended low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS) after a national trial demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with LDCT. Implementation of LCS employing LDCT depends heavily on physician education regarding multiple factors, including eligibility criteria, potential benefits and harms, and shared decision-making. To date, there are no studies of educational approaches for teaching physicians about LCS. This study aims to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing an interactive, group-based learning (GBL) curriculum to teach physicians about LCS. A prospective study was conducted at two nearby institutions from 2017 to 2019 comparing GBL with a lecture format as measured by total knowledge about LCS, acceptability of the educational format, and ease of implementation. We surveyed participants regarding total knowledge and format acceptance. Results were compared to determine whether GBL is an effective and feasible educational strategy for LDCT and LCS education. Residents and faculty participating in GBL demonstrated greater total knowledge compared with residents and faculty participating in the lecture format. Participants in both cohorts preferred a mix of GBL and lecture formats. All participants believed that GBL facilitates implementation of LCS better than lecture-based learning. GBL is an effective and feasible approach for educating physicians about LCS, though it is more time- and resource-intensive than a lecture approach. However, healthcare providers believe GBL will facilitate implementation of LCS more than lectures.
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.