ArticleInternational journal of public health2025
Community Perceptions of Executive Orders Impacting Lung Cancer Care, Research, and Mental Health.
Article in International journal of public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In January 2025, federal executive orders introduced sweeping changes to healthcare, public health infrastructure, and research funding. These shifts raised concern within the lung cancer (LC) community, which depends on early detection, timely care, and continued innovation. This study examined community perceptions of these policy changes. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods national survey (March 2025) guided by the Social Ecological Model. A 12-item online survey collected responses from individuals with personal or professional ties to LC. Descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis were performed. Results: Among 497 respondents, 239 met inclusion criteria. Most reported a personal (69.5%), professional (20.0%), or combined (10.5%) connection to LC. Over half cited emotional distress, disrupted care, and research-funding concerns. Thematic analysis of 81 responses revealed six themes: fear and uncertainty; reduced access; research loss; and mixed views, with some supporting or opposing the executive orders. Patients and caregivers most often reported fears regarding Medicaid cuts, delayed diagnostics, and stalled innovation. Conclusion: Findings highlight emotional, operational, and research-related disruptions perceived by LC communities and reinforce the urgency of centering affected voices in health-policy decisions.
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.