Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39507020›Full record

ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2024

Systems mapping: a novel approach to national lung cancer screening implementation in Australia.

Sandra Marjanovic, Andrew Page, Emily Stone, Danielle J Currie, Nicole M Rankin, Renelle Myers, Fraser Brims, Neal Navani, Kate A McBride

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Progress on the application of system dynamics model in the field of health management].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

Sandra MarjanovicTranslational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Andrew PageTranslational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Emily StoneDepartment of Thoracic Medicine and Lung Transplantation, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Danielle J CurrieThe Sax Institute, Decision Analytics, Sydney, Australia.
Nicole M RankinMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Renelle MyersIntegrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada.
Fraser BrimsCurtin Medical School, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Neal NavaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Kate A McBrideTranslational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has been started in some high-income countries and is being considered in others. In many settings uptake remains low. Optimal strategies to increase uptake, including for high-risk subgroups, have not been elucidated. This study used a system dynamics approach based on expert consensus to identify (I) the likely determinants of screening uptake and (II) interactions between these determinants that may affect screening uptake. Methods: Consensus data on key factors influencing screening uptake were developed from existing literature and through two stakeholder workshops involving clinical and consumer experts. These factors were used to develop a causal loop diagram (CLD) of lung cancer screening uptake. Results: The CLD comprised three main perspectives of importance for a lung cancer screening program: participant, primary care, and health system. Eight key drivers in the system were identified within these perspectives that will likely influence screening uptake: (I) patient stigma; (II) patient fear of having lung cancer; (III) patient health literacy; (IV) patient waiting time for a scan appointment; (V) general practitioner (GP) capacity; (VI) GP clarity on next steps after an abnormal computed tomography (CT); (VII) specialist capacity to accept referrals and undertake evaluation; and (VIII) healthcare capacity for scanning and reporting. Five key system leverage points to optimise screening uptake were also identified: (I) patient stigma influencing willingness to receive a scan; (II) GP capacity for referral to scans; (III) GP capacity to increase patients' health literacy; (IV) specialist capacity to connect patients with timely treatment; and (V) healthcare capacity to reduce scanning waiting times. Conclusions: This novel approach to investigation of lung cancer screening implementation, based on Australian expert stakeholder consensus, provides a system-wide view of critical factors that may either limit or promote screening uptake.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareLung neoplasmsmass screeningsystem dynamics

Identifiers

PMID39507020
PMCPMC11535840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.