ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
Provider readiness and implementation barriers for lung cancer screening in a safety-net system.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography is a critical preventive strategy, yet implementation remains complex, particularly in safety-net settings. This study assessed provider knowledge, attitudes, and readiness to implement LCS, including shared decision-making (SDM) and smoking cessation, within a large urban safety-net healthcare system. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed between February and September 2023 to 200 healthcare providers, including physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, trainees, and administrators in Houston, Texas. The 26-item instrument assessed familiarity with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) LCS coverage, SDM billing, role preferences in LCS implementation, support needs, and readiness to engage in related activities. Results: Seventy-four providers responded (37 % response rate), and 60 completed the survey. Most were physicians (63 %), with specialties in family (45 %) and pulmonary medicine (20 %). While 77 % were familiar with CMS coverage, only 50 % were aware of SDM visit reimbursement, and 15 % knew the billing codes. Most identified physicians as key to SDM (96.7 %) and smoking cessation (93.3 %). Providers prioritized support in eligibility guidance (67 %), insurance coverage (60 %), decision aids (58 %), and cessation training (42 %). Preferred decision aids included exam room videos (70 %), waiting room videos (65 %), brochures (62 %), and electronic record-integrated tools (50 %). Most believed LCS benefits outweighed risks (92 %) and reported high readiness to engage in screening. Conclusions: Providers in safety-net settings support LCS implementation but report critical gaps in knowledge and infrastructure. Addressing these barriers through multidisciplinary collaboration, provider training, and improved decision support can enhance equitable delivery of lung cancer screening.
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.