Observational studyJAMA network open2021
Patterns and Factors Associated With Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening in Diverse Practice Settings.
Observational study in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 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
54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Health Communication and Stepped Reminders Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Long-term efficacy and adherence of a lung cancer screening strategy with extended LDCT intervals: Results from the BioMILD trial.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Lung cancer screening care pathways in community settings: an examination of 3 healthcare systems.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Bronchus and lung cancer-related mortality trends in the United States from 1999 to 2023.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Hospital follow-up adherence among screen-positive lung cancer utilizing a mobile LDCT in community in Hainan, China: a prospective cohort study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Implementation of a hybrid lung health program for Northeast Texas: study protocol.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Health Beliefs and Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening in a Diverse Safety-Net Population.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2026Article
- Describing behavioral aspects of annual lung cancer screening participation: Application of the cognitive-social health information processing model.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2026Article
- Single-session photon-counting CT protocol for simultaneous screening of coronary and carotid artery disease and lung pathology.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation of a lung cancer screening program at an urban safety-net hospital: enabling solutions via stakeholder engagement.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- A pragmatic pre-post intervention trial to address adherence to lung cancer screening follow-up in community settings (the ACCELL trial): Study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Trends in lung cancer and pneumonia-associated mortality in the United States, 1999-2023: A CDC WONDER database study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: For lung cancer screening to confer mortality benefit, adherence to annual screening with low-dose computed tomography scans is essential. Although the National Lung Screening Trial had an adherence rate of 95%, current data are limited on screening adherence across diverse practice settings in the United States. Objective: To evaluate patterns and factors associated with adherence to annual screening for lung cancer after negative results of a baseline examination, particularly in centralized vs decentralized screening programs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study was conducted at 5 academic and community-based sites in North Carolina and California among 2283 individuals screened for lung cancer between July 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018, who met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria, had negative results of a baseline screening examination (American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 1 or 2), and were eligible to return for a screening examination in 12 months. Exposures: To identify factors associated with adherence, the association of adherence with selected baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including type of screening program, was estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Screening program type was classified as centralized if individuals were referred through a lung cancer screening clinic or program and as decentralized if individuals had a direct clinician referral for the baseline low-dose computed tomography scan. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to annual lung cancer screening, defined as a second low-dose computed tomography scan within 11 to 15 months after baseline screening. Results: Among the 2283 eligible individuals (1294 men [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [5.8] years; 1160 [50.8%] aged ≥65 years) who had negative screening results at baseline, overall adherence was 40.2% (n = 917), with higher adherence among those who underwent screening through centralized (46.0% [478 of 1039]) vs decentralized (35.3% [439 of 1244]) programs. The independent factor most strongly associated with adherence was type of screening program, with a 2.8-fold increased likelihood of adherence associated with centralized screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.78; 95% CI, 1.99-3.88). Another associated factor was age (65-69 vs 55-59 years: aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77; 70-74 vs 55-59 years: aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.10-1.96). Conclusions and Relevance: After negative results of a baseline examination, adherence to annual lung cancer screening was suboptimal, although adherence was higher among individuals who were screened through a centralized program. These results support the value of centralized screening programs and the need to further implement strategies that improve adherence to annual screening for lung cancer.
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.