ArticleCancer medicine2022
Impact of the shared decision-making process on lung cancer screening decisions.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cultural influences on shared decision-making among Asian Americans: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.Patient education and counseling · 2023Pooled it
- Assessing Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening: Initial Findings from a Patient Navigation Intervention.Population health management · 2023Trial
- Decision-Making Readiness and Its Influencing Factors Among Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing open · 2026Observational
- The impact of shared decision-making on patient-reported outcomes in Traditional Chinese Medicine in Shanghai, China: a cross-sectional study using structural equation modeling.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Process perspectives on lung cancer screening in primary care: a qualitative study of providers and staff in an urban U.S. healthcare system.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for lung cancer screening decisions (DQI-LCS).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Navigating the Complexity of Lung Cancer Surveillance Practices: Qualitative Pilot Study on Provider Perspectives.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- The TELEhealth Shared decision-making COaching and navigation in Primary carE (TELESCOPE) intervention: a study protocol for delivering shared decision-making for lung cancer screening by patient navigators.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Article
- Impact of the shared decision-making process on lung cancer screening decisions.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProfessional organizations recommend the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in supporting patients' decisions about lung cancer screening (LCS). The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the SDM process on patient knowledge about LCS, decisional conflict, intentions to adhere to screening recommendations, and its role in how the patient made the final decision.
methodsThis study surveyed patients screened for lung cancer within 12 months of the survey, recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the U.S. (May to July 2018).
resultsTwo hundred and sixty-four patients completed the survey (87.9% White, 52% male, and mean age of 64.81). Higher SDM process scores (which indicates a better SDM process reported by patients) were significantly associated with greater knowledge of LCS (b = 0.17 p < 0.01). Higher SDM process scores were associated with less decisional conflict about their screening choice (b = 0.45, p < 0.001), greater intentions to make the same decision again (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = [1.06-1.89]), and greater intentions to undergo LCS again (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = [1.08-1.62]). The SDM process score was not associated with patients' report of whether or not they shared the final decision with the healthcare provider (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = [0.85-1.35]). CONCLUSION(S): This study found that a better SDM process was associated with better affective-cognitive outcomes among patients screened 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.