ArticleRespirology (Carlton, Vic.)2026
Maximising Participation in the Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Eligible, High-Risk Individuals.
Article in Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maximising Participation in the Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Eligible, High-Risk Individuals.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Article
- Ready to screen implementation trial protocol: a cluster randomized implementation trial comparing a bundled implementation strategy versus a simple implementation strategy to improve intention to screen in the Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program.Implementation science : IS · 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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRelatively little is known about how to maximise participation in lung cancer screening for Australians at high risk of developing the disease. A discrete choice experiment was conducted to elicit and quantify preferences of Australians eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) to maximise participation in the National Lung Cancer Screening Program (NLCSP) and estimate likely participation.
methodsRespondents completed an online survey of six LCS factors or 'attributes' (invitation to screen, eligibility assessment, appointment booking, model of care, health care worker support and out-of-pocket costs). Results were analysed using mixed logit (MIXL), multinomial logit (MNL) and latent class analysis to explore heterogeneity in respondents' choices. Willingness to pay (WTP) for screening attributes were estimated based on the ratio of the coefficient on attributes to cost.
resultsRespondents (n = 757) were aged 50-70 years with smoking histories (> 30 pack-year history and either currently smoke or quit ≤ 10 years). The MIXL showed that participants preferred support from a program navigator, with the highest estimated WTP of $24, plus personalised invitations and lower screening costs. The results identified participation rates that could be achieved through optimal LCS program design, across the most optimistic screening program scenario (87.4%), the scenario proposed in the NLCSP (51.5%) and the least preferred scenario (35.0%).
conclusionThe results are highly relevant for the NLCSP, which commenced on 1 July 2025. Potential participants place significant value on program navigators, a role not funded within the program, which could significantly improve 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.