ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Qualitative Findings From a Survey on Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Veteran Satisfaction With Lung Cancer Screening Care: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation.Medical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo reveal successes and potential limitations of the lung cancer screening program, we conducted a survey that included both quantitative and open-ended questions to measure patient experiences and satisfaction with screening.
methodsWe report on the five open-ended items related to barriers to returning for screening, experience with other cancer prevention screenings, positive and negative experiences, and suggestions for improving future appointments. The open-ended responses were analyzed using constant comparison method and inductive content analysis.
resultsRespondents (182 patients, 86% response rate for open-ended questions) provided generally positive comments about their lung cancer screening experience. Negative comments were related to desire for more information about results, long wait times for results, and billing issues. Suggestions for improvements included: scheduling on-line appointments and text or email reminders, lower costs, and responding to uncertainty about eligibility criteria.
conclusionFindings provide insights about patient experiences and satisfaction with lung cancer screening which is important given low uptake. Ongoing patient-centered feedback may improve the lung cancer screening experience and increase follow-up screening rates.
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.