ReviewJournal of smoking cessation2023
Patients' Views on Medical Events in Lung Cancer Screening as Teachable Moments for Smoking Behaviour Change: A Systematic Review and Metasynthesis.
Review in Journal of smoking cessation, 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.
- Korean Clinical Practice Guideline of Korean Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (KSRNT) and National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) on Treatment of Tobacco Use 2024.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Guideline
- Trial
- Strategies for sustainable lung cancer screening: a multi-faceted perspective to long-term surveillance in SOLACE.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Determinants of quality of life among lung cancer patients: insights from a cross-sectional study.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- "Because That is the Right Thing to do": A Focus Group Study of Australian Expert Perspectives on Offering Smoking Cessation Support in Lung Cancer Screening.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although medical events in lung cancer screening (LCS) such as receiving scan results or interactions with clinicians are recognised as teachable moments (TMs), the views of patients about why this is the case for smoking behaviour change remain uncertain. This systematic review and metasynthesis study is aimed at identifying the reasons why patients believed that medical events during LCS act as TMs for smoking behaviour change. A search strategy was developed for use with MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL-P, Web of Science databases, and Google Scholar. This helped identify qualitative and mixed-method research which mentioned patients' views of how these TMs result in smoking behaviour change. After screening, final articles were critically appraised; general characteristics and data relevant to the aims were extracted to conduct a line-of-argument metasynthesis. After screening 695 papers, 11 were included. Undergoing LCS scans was seen to act on their intrinsic motivation to reduce smoking as it served as a "wake-up call" and increased awareness of the health consequences of smoking. Receiving positive or negative LCS results resulted in cessation as it was a "health scare" and challenged smoking habits. Interactions with clinicians addressed misconceptions and signposted them to specialist cessation services. Attendees believed that the following encouraged them to change their smoking behaviour: having an intrinsic motivation to quit, their beliefs on smoking and health reframed, their negative emotions appraised, and using LCS to access specialist support. In line with the TM heuristic, these experiences provided the necessary skills, confidence, and motivation to quit. Future research should explore whether the views of the clinicians match those of the attendees to address misconceptions and further develop clinical guidelines.
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.