ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Willingness to participate in combination screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease in four European countries.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- ESR Essentials: lung cancer screening with low-dose CT-practice recommendations by the European Society of Thoracic Imaging.European radiology · 2026Guideline
- 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
- Bridging Mammography and Lung Cancer Screening: Eligibility, Uptake and Potential Impact.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Model-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of Combined Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Cardiovascular Disease.JTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
- Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: is combined screening of Big-3 diseases a major opportunity?European radiology · 2025Article
- Beyond lung cancer screening, an opportunity for early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular diseases.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Inadequate Uptake of USPSTF-Recommended Low Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLung cancer screening (LCS), using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), can be more efficient by simultaneously screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), the Big-3 diseases. This study aimed to determine the willingness to participate in (combinations of) Big-3 screening in four European countries and the relative importance of amendable participation barriers.
methodsAn online cross-sectional survey aimed at (former) smokers aged 50-75 years elicited the willingness of individuals to participate in Big-3 screening and used analytical hierarchy processing (AHP) to determine the importance of participation barriers.
resultsRespondents were from France (n = 391), Germany (n = 338), Italy (n = 399), and the Netherlands (n = 342), and consisted of 51.2% men. The willingness to participate in screening was marginally influenced by the diseases screened for (maximum difference of 3.1%, for Big-3 screening (73.4%) vs. lung cancer and COPD screening (70.3%)) and by country (maximum difference of 3.7%, between France (68.5%) and the Netherlands (72.3%)). The largest effect on willingness to participate was personal perceived risk of lung cancer. The most important barriers were the missed cases during screening (weight 0.19) and frequency of screening (weight 0.14), while diseases screened for (weight 0.11) ranked low.
conclusionsThe difference in willingness to participate in LCS showed marginal increase with inclusion of more diseases and limited variation between countries. A marginal increase in participation might result in a marginal additional benefit of Big-3 screening. The amendable participation barriers are similar to previous studies, and the new criterion, diseases screened for, is relatively unimportant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Adding diseases to combination screening modestly improves participation, driven by personal perceived risk. These findings guide program design and campaigns for lung cancer and Big-3 screening. Benefits of Big-3 screening lie in long-term health and economic impact, not participation increase. KEY POINTS: • It is unknown whether or how combination screening might affect participation. • The addition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease to lung cancer screening resulted in a marginal increase in willingness to participate. • The primary determinant influencing individuals' engagement in such programs is their personal perceived risk of the disease.
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.