Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36938372›Full record

ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2023

Interventions Designed to Increase the Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: An Equity-Oriented Scoping Review.

Ambreen Sayani, Muhanad Ahmed Ali, Pooja Dey, Ann Marie Corrado, Carolyn Ziegler, Erika Nicholson, Aisha Lofters

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Sociodemographic Determinants of Timely Hip Dysplasia Ultrasound Screening.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Current Evidence for a Lung Cancer Screening Program.Portuguese journal of public health · 2024
    Review
  16. Observational
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ambreen SayaniWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Muhanad Ahmed AliWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Pooja DeyWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ann Marie CorradoPeter Gilgan Centre for Women's Cancers, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Carolyn ZieglerLibrary Services, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Erika NicholsonCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Canada.
Aisha LoftersWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Women's College Hospital · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CACanadian Partnership Against Cancer · CAUnity Health Toronto

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) is lower in populations with the highest burden of lung cancer risk (through the social patterning of smoking behavior) and lowest levels of health care utilization (through structurally inaccessible care) leading to a widening of health inequities. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework to inform equitable access to LCS by illuminating knowledge and implementation gaps in interventions designed to increase the uptake of LCS. We comprehensively searched for LCS interventions (Ovid Medline, Excerpta Medica database, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus from 2000 to June 22, 2021) and included peer-reviewed articles and gray literature published in the English language that describe an intervention designed to increase the uptake of LCS, charted data using our previously published tool and conduced a health equity analysis to determine the intended-unintended and positive-negative outcomes of the interventions for populations experiencing the greatest inequities. Results: Our search yielded 3572 peer-reviewed articles and 54,292 pieces of gray literature. Ultimately, we included 35 peer-reviewed articles and one gray literature. The interventions occurred in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy, focusing on shared decision-making, the use of electronic health records as reminders, patient navigation, community-based campaigns, and mobile computed tomography scanners. We developed an equity-oriented LCS framework and mapped the dimensions and outcomes of the interventions on access to LCS on the basis of approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness of the intervention. No intervention was mapped across all five dimensions. Most notably, knowledge and implementation gaps were identified in dimensions of acceptability, availability, and affordability. Conclusions: Interventions that were most effective in improving access to LCS targeted priority populations, raised community-level awareness, tailored materials for sociocultural acceptability, did not depend on prior patient engagement/registration with the health care system, proactively considered costs related to participation, and enhanced utilization through informed decision-making.

Indexed as

Equity-oriented lung cancer screening frameworkHealth equityLung cancer screeningPriority populationScoping review

Identifiers

PMID36938372
PMCPMC10015251
OpenAlexW4318954097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.