Trial reportTranslational behavioral medicine2025
Supporting community translation of lung cancer screening: A web-based decision aid to support informed decision making.
Trial report in Translational behavioral medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Big data-driven machine learning: transforming multi-omics lung cancer research.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Patient-clinician discussions on lung cancer screening in the United States before and after 2021 guidelines.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Article
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
backgroundResults of the National Lung Screening Trial create the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but community translation of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been challenging. Subsequent policies have endorsed informed and shared decision-making and using decision support tools to support person-centered choices about screening to facilitate implementation. This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of LuCaS CHOICES, a web-based decision aid to support delivery of accurate information, facilitate communication skill development, and clarify personal preferences regarding LCS-a key component of high-quality LCS implementation.
methodsUsing a parallel groups randomized trial, the study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of LuCaS CHOICES decision aid in comparison to the National Cancer Institute's Lung Cancer Screening website. Three waves of self-report data were collected: baseline (PRE), 2 weeks post-baseline (POST), and 4 months post-baseline (FOL). Participant accrual and intervention access data were also collected to evaluate methodological feasibility for conducting a larger subsequent trial.
resultsParticipants assigned to LuCaS CHOICES (n = 25) and the NCI website (n = 25) interventions reported similar, favorable levels of intervention feasibility and acceptability that exceeded a priori criteria. Methodological feasibility was partially supported for the proposed accrual and retention goals, but accrual was slower than hypothesized, and documented exposure to the digital interventions was suboptimal per a priori standards.
conclusionsOverall, both interventions demonstrated intervention feasibility and acceptability. In addition, the proposed methods achieved desired levels of retention and overall data collection. Modifications to enhance intervention engagement should be explored prior to further testing. Subsequent steps involve conducting a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of LuCaS CHOICES on informed decision making and preference-concordant screening behavior, supporting LCS translation into community settings.
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.