ArticlePatient education and counseling2023
Patient impressions of the impact of comorbidities on lung cancer screening benefits and harms: A qualitative analysis.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening uptake and intention to screen: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
- Pretest-posttest trial of a lung cancer screening decision aid for individuals with multimorbidity from a primary care population.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Physician preferences for an electronic lung cancer screening decision aid.The American journal of managed care · 2024Article
- "It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.Annals of family medicineArticle
- Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo learn about the beliefs and preferences of lung cancer screening (LCS) among patients undergoing LCS decision making. Specifically, we investigated how their comorbidity influences their interest in screening. The goal was to inform shared-decision making discussions around the role of comorbidities and LCS.
methodsWe recruited English-speaking LCS-eligible individuals with comorbidities from general medicine outpatient clinics at an academic medical center in New York City. The interviewers followed a semi-structured interview guide and all interviews were professionally transcribed. Study investigators independently conducted thematic analysis of de-identified transcripts; after coding, investigators discussed and agreed upon identified themes (Jacobs et al., 1999 [3]). This study was IRB-approved.
resultsWe achieved thematic saturation after 15 interviews. We identified the following themes: 1) Comorbidities were perceived as unrelated to LCS decision-making, 2) Lung cancer knowledge is valuable and worth any risks, 3) No matter what the guidelines or my providers say, the LCS decision is up to me. CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implications of these findings are that conversations where providers recommend against LCS may likely require time, patient education, and appreciation of the patient perspective.
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.