ArticleQualitative research in medicine & healthcare2023
Examination of provider knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with lung cancer screening among Black men receiving care at a federally qualified health center.
Article in Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- "I Was Expecting the Worst": Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening in Black and Hispanic Communities.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Process perspectives on lung cancer screening in primary care: a qualitative study of providers and staff in an urban U.S. healthcare system.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Learning about perspectives of patients and colleagues through qualitative research.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study's goal was to look at providers' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding lung cancer screening among Black male smokers served by a federally qualified healthcare center. Participants in the study were interviewed in depth. Participants completed a short (5-10 minute) survey that assessed demographics, training, and attitudes toward lung cancer screening. For quantitative data, descriptive statistics were used, and for qualitative data, deductive thematic analysis was used. This study included ten healthcare professionals, the majority of whom identified as Black (80%) and were trained as advanced practice providers (60%). The majority of providers (90%) have heard of LDCT lung cancer screening; however, participants reported only being "somewhat" familiar with the LDCT eligibility criteria (70%). Despite generally positive attitudes toward LDCT, patient referral rates for screening were low. Barriers included a lack of provider knowledge about screening eligibility, a lack of use of shared decision-making tools, and patient concerns about screening risks. The reasons for the low referral rates varied, but they included a preference to refer patients for smoking cessation rather than screening, low screening completion and follow-up rates among referred patients, and a lower likelihood that Black smokers will meet pack-year requirements for screening. Additionally, providers discussed patient-level factors such as a lack of information, mistrust, and transportation. The study findings add to the body of knowledge about lung cancer knowledge and screening practices among providers in FQHC settings. This data can be used to create health promotion interventions aimed at smoking cessation and lung cancer screening in Black males and other high-risk smokers.
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.