ArticleThe American journal of managed care2024
Physician preferences for an electronic lung cancer screening decision aid.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2026Pooled it
- The implementation challenge of computerised clinical decision support systems for the detection of disease in primary care: systematic review and recommendations.Implementation science : IS · 2025Pooled it
- Prostate Cancer Screening Practices Among High-Risk Patients: A Retrospective Analysis.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo present primary care physician (PCP) suggestions for design and implementation of a decision aid (DA) tool to support patient-provider shared decision-making on lung cancer screening (LCS). STUDY
designSemistructured interviews were conducted with 15 PCPs at an academic medical center.
methodsThe deidentified transcripts were independently coded by 2 study interviewers and jointly reviewed every 5 interviews until we determined that data saturation had been achieved. We then identified themes in the data and selected illustrative quotes.
resultsThree main themes were identified: (1) make it brief and familiar (make the tool user-friendly and implement a similar format to other widely used DAs); (2) bring me to automation station (limit busywork; focus on the patient and on the decision); and (3) involve the patient (facilitate patient involvement in the DA with simple language, visual aids, and bullet-point takeaways).
conclusionsFindings contain concrete suggestions by PCPs to inform usable and acceptable LCS DA tool design and implementation. For an LCS DA to be most successful, PCPs emphasized that the tool must be easy to use and incorporate autopopulation functions to limit redundant patient charting.
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.