Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38779527›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Clinician Perceptions on Using Decision Tools to Support Prediction-Based Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.

Sarah E Skurla, N Joseph Leishman, Angela Fagerlin, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Julie Lowery, Tanner J Caverly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Why aren't they used? Systematic review of barriers to implementation of clinical decision support systems for early cancer detection in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Review
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

6 authors.

Sarah E SkurlaCenter for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
N Joseph LeishmanBioFire Diagnostics, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Angela FagerlinUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Renda Soylemez WienerCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Julie LoweryCenter for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Tanner J CaverlyCenter for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6560-0547

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Considering a patient's full risk factor profile can promote personalized shared decision making (SDM). One way to accomplish this is through encounter tools that incorporate prediction models, but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice. We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS). Design: We conducted a qualitative study based on field notes from academic detailing visits during a multisite quality improvement program. The detailer engaged one-on-one with 96 primary care clinicians across multiple Veterans Affairs sites (7 medical centers and 6 outlying clinics) to get feedback on 1) the rationale for prediction-based LCS and 2) how to use the DecisionPrecision (DP) encounter tool with eligible patients to personalize LCS discussions. Results: Thematic content analysis from detailing visit data identified 6 categories of clinician willingness to use the DP tool to personalize SDM for LCS (adoption potential), varying from "Enthusiastic Potential Adopter" ( Limitations: The results are based on the clinician's initial reactions rather than longitudinal experience. Conclusions: While many primary care clinicians saw real value in using prediction to personalize LCS decisions, more support is needed to overcome barriers to using encounter tools in practice. Based on these findings, we propose several strategies that may facilitate the adoption of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS. Highlights: Encounter tools that incorporate prediction models promote personalized shared decision making (SDM), but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice.We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).While many clinicians found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.We propose several strategies to overcome adoption barriers and facilitate the use of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Indexed as

academic detailinglung cancer screeningshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID38779527
PMCPMC11110512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.