ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2025
Patient-clinician discussions on lung cancer screening in the United States before and after 2021 guidelines.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Leveraging Social Media to Achieve Population-Level Reach of Lung Cancer Screening-Eligible Individuals: A RE-AIM Framework Perspective.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Confronting nihilism and stigma in lung cancer: The nurse practitioner's role in restoring hope and trust.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScreening for lung cancer via low-dose computed tomography of the chest can promote early detection and reduce mortality. However, since the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) issued lung cancer screening guidelines in 2013, uptake has been low. The USPSTF revised the guidelines in 2021 to expand eligibility. PURPOSE: To determine whether patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening differs from 2017 to 2022 following 2021 revisions to the guidelines for lung cancer screening.
methodsData were obtained from the Health Information National Trends Survey (2017, 2020, and 2022). Community-dwelling US adults (N = 2973) were in the eligible age range for lung cancer screening (55-80 for 2017 and 2020; 50-80 for 2022), reported current or former smoking, and had no prior history of lung cancer. The primary outcome was self-reported patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening within the last 12 months.
resultsThe weighted proportion of respondents who discussed lung cancer screening with a healthcare provider was 12.34% in 2017, 13.77% in 2020, and 9.42% in 2022. The odds of reporting screening discussions were significantly lower in 2022 than 2020 (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.36, 0.93]). Individuals with insurance (OR = 9.12, 95% CI [2.81, 29.96]) and those who were currently smoking (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.89, 4.13]) had higher odds of discussing screening.
conclusionsPatient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening were lower in 2022 than 2020, despite revised guidelines that broadened eligibility. Research should explore strategies to increase awareness of lung cancer screening and prioritize discussions about screening among those who are uninsured and formerly smoked.
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.