Trial reportJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2021
Aiding shared decision making in lung cancer screening: two decision tools.
Trial report in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of patient decision aids used pre-consult or in-consult on patient-clinician communication - secondary analysis of a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Interventions to Support Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Patient and Healthcare Provider Barriers in the LDCT Lung Cancer Screening Continuum.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Navigating advanced lung cancer care, patient-physician alliance, cancer stigma, and psychosocial support in Asia-Pacific: perspectives from patients, caregivers, and physicians.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Technology-Based Interventions in Promoting Lung Cancer Screening Uptake and Decision-Making Among Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Review
- A Rapid Review of Interventions to Improve Care for People Who Are Medically Underserved with Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Lung Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Clinician and patient experiences with shared decision-making to promote daily arm use for individuals with chronic stroke: an exploratory qualitative study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- Clinical Adjuncts to Lung Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review.Thoracic surgery clinics · 2023Review
- LungCARE: Encouraging Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening-a Randomized Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Review
- The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community: a multi-health-system, citywide approach to lung cancer screening.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- A predictive model for lung cancer screening nonadherence in a community setting health-care network.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Influencing factors of lung cancer patients' participation in shared decision-making: a cross-sectional study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Communication tools and patient satisfaction: A scoping review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShared decision making (SDM) preceding lung cancer screening is important for populations that are underrepresented in lung cancer screening trials. Current evidence-based guidelines; however, do not address personal risk and outcomes in underrepresented populations. This study compared two SDM decision aids (Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com) for SDM efficacy, decision regret and knowledge.
methodsWe conducted a prospective trial of lung cancer screening patients (N = 237) randomized to SDM with Option Grids or Shouldiscreen.com. To evaluate the SDM process after lung cancer screening, patients answered two questionnaires: CollaboRATE and Decision Regret. Patients also completed a questionnaire to test their knowledge of lung cancer screening.
resultsPatients were predominantly African American (61.6%), though multiple races, varying education levels and equal genders were represented. Patients in both Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com groups reported favorable SDM experiences (P = 0.60) and equivalent knowledge about lung cancer screening (P = 0.43). Patients using Shouldiscreen.com had less knowledge regarding the potential complications of subsequent testing (P = 0.02). Shouldiscreen.com patients had increased regret regarding their decision to pursue screening (P = 0.02).
conclusionsOption Grids and Shouldiscreen.com both facilitated a meaningful SDM process. However, Option Grids patients experienced decreased decision regret and enhanced knowledge of the potential complications of screening.
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.