ArticleJournal of the National Medical Association2025
Multi-level factors associated with low dose computed tomography lung cancer screening in the United States.
Article in Journal of the National Medical Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Learning curve, safety and diagnostic yield of the GalaxyJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is recommended for high-risk smokers to decrease lung cancer-related mortality and increase prognosis. In the U.S., the uptake of LDCT screening among eligible smokers is suboptimal. The impacts of social-environmental and individual factors on LDCT screening uptake using nationally representative dataset recommendations are understudied. The current study investigated multi-level factors associated with LDCT screening using national data.
methodsThe 2017-2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data, social determinants of health (SDOH) and other state-level variables (Medicaid expansion status and the number of screening facilities using American Lung Association (ALA) 's State of Lung Cancer) were applied. Our study outcome variance was LDCT screening among study participants who met the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for lung cancer screening. The final study sample consisted of 15640 respondents from 29 states. All analyses were weighted to account for the complex sampling design applied in BRFSS.
resultsThe overall utilization rate of LDCT screening is only 18.4%. The LDCT screening rate varied by state (6.2 -31.1%). LDCT screen rates were not significantly associated with the number of lung cancer screening facilities (r=0.02, p=0.909) but were positively associated with the number of lung cancer screening facilities per 10,000 smokers (r=0.67, p<0.001). Among the respondents, individuals who were employed, never married, reported good health status, did not have primary care physicians, economic concerns like low income, did not have routine checkups, and did not have certain chronic conditions (i.e. cancer, asthma, COPD) had a lower utilization rate of LDCT screening compared with their counterpart.
conclusionThe use of LDCT screening among eligible smokers remains low. Enhancing access to care for high-risk individuals, promoting services to diverse racial and socioeconomic groups, and expanding Medicaid coverage to incorporate annual LDCT screening can be used to guide future lung cancer screening programs.
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.