ArticleBMC cancer2025
Lung cancer screening experiences among patients with a smoking history and primary care providers: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- A case report of pulmonary granuloma misdiagnosed as a malignant tumor.The Journal of international medical research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose CT can identify early-stage lung cancer and reduce lung cancer mortality. LCS is underutilized. Patient and provider concerns and experiences may contribute to low utilization.
objectiveTo categorize patient and provider experiences with lung cancer screening to identify barriers to utilization.
designMixed methods study with a survey plus a qualitative interview.
participantsParticipants were 50 patients aged 55-80 with a smoking history and 7 primary care physicians in the United States.
methodsParticipants were interviewed about LCS perceptions and experiences. Transcripts were double-coded and an Applied Thematic Analysis identified key themes.
resultsThirty-two patients (68% of those with valid data) met US Preventive Services Taskforce guideline criteria for lung cancer screening, 11 (22%) self-reported tests consistent with LCS. Five main themes emerged: (1) Patient knowledge about LCS is low, even among those screened. Provider knowledge is high. (2) Low dose CT for LCS is well tolerated by patients and acceptable to providers. (3) Provider behavior is influenced by public health guidelines but not insurance coverage. (4) Shared decision-making is not always engaged in. (5) System barriers in the referral process affect LCS receipt despite patient interest in LCS.
conclusionsLCS is well tolerated by patients and valued by providers. To increase LCS knowledge and uptake, systems changes are needed to facilitate shared decision-making conversations, simplify the referral process, and provide care navigation to increase patient logistical barriers to uptake.
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.