ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2023
Development and testing of "Is Lung Cancer Screening for You?" A computer-based decision aid.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung cancer screening completion among patients using decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Interventions to Support Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Using AI to Design and Develop Online Educational Modules to Enhance Lung Cancer Screening Uptake Among High-Risk Individuals.Cancers · 2026Article
- 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
- Patient-Reported Barriers and Preferred Interventions to Improve Lung Cancer Screening Uptake.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- Examining implementation strategies to reduce disparities in lung cancer screening uptake by state Medicaid expansion status: a scoping review.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives on a Patient-Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo reduce lung cancer mortality, individuals at high-risk should receive a low-dose computed tomography screening annually. To increase the likelihood of screening, interventions that promote shared decision-making are needed. The goal of this study was to investigate the feasibility, acceptability, usability, and preliminary effectiveness of a computer-based decision aid.
methodsThirty-three participants were recruited through primary-care clinics in a small southeastern-US city. Participants used a computer-based decision aid ("Is Lung Cancer Screening for You?") during a clinic appointment. Paper surveys collected self-reported feasibility, acceptability, and usability data. A research coordinator was present to observe each patient's and health-care provider's interactions, and to assess the fidelity of shared decision-making.
resultsThe decision aid was feasible, acceptable for use in a clinic setting, and easy for participants to use. Patients had low decisional conflict following use of the decision aid and had high screening intention and actual screening rates. Shared decision-making discussions using the decision aid were nearly 6 min on average.
conclusionComputer-based decision aids are feasible for promoting shared lung cancer-screening decisions. A more robust study is warranted to measure the added value of a computer-based version of this aid versus a paper-based aid.
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.