Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32798520›Full record

ArticleChest2021

How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening.

Amir Alishahi Tabriz, Christine Neslund-Dudas, Kea Turner, M Patricia Rivera, Daniel S Reuland, Jennifer Elston Lafata

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Amir Alishahi TabrizEshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC.
Christine Neslund-DudasHenry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Kea TurnerUniversity of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, FL; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL.
M Patricia RiveraSchool of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
Daniel S ReulandSchool of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
Jennifer Elston LafataEshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI. Electronic address: jel@email.unc.edu.
Henry Ford Health System · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterFlorida College · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

e-Assist: A Post-Visit Patient Portal Tool to Promote Colorectal Cancer ScreeningR01CA197205 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI ELSTON LAFATA, JENNIFER M · 2015 to 2019
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA197205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsFor this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically.

resultsWe interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality.

interpretationThose responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedEarly Detection of CancerMedicareReimbursement MechanismsHumansLung NeoplasmsQualitative ResearchUnited Statesimplementationinformed decision-makinglung cancerlung cancer screeningshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID32798520
PMCPMC7893305
OpenAlexW3048887074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.