Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36869308›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2023

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

Rebekah Gomes, Andrea Nederveld, Russell E Glasgow, Jamie L Studts, Jodi Summers Holtrop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rebekah GomesUniversity of Colorado Adult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science (ACCORDS), Aurora, CO, USA.
Andrea NederveldDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Mail Stop F496, 12631 E. 17Th Ave, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Russell E GlasgowUniversity of Colorado Adult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science (ACCORDS), Aurora, CO, USA.
Jamie L StudtsDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, and University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Jodi Summers HoltropUniversity of Colorado Adult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science (ACCORDS), Aurora, CO, USA. jodi.holtrop@cuanschutz.edu.

Funding

Pragmatic Implementation Science Approaches to Assess and Enhance Value of Cancer Prevention and Control in Rural Primary CareP50CA244688 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GLASGOW, RUSSELL E · 2019 to 2023
$4.9M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244688
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients.

methodsThis qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues.

resultsAlthough all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer.

conclusionsLimited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsColoradoHumansPrimary Health CareEarly detection of cancerLung neoplasmsPrimary health careRural population

Identifiers

PMID36869308
PMCPMC9982804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.