Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41514219›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2026

Recruitment preferences for lung cancer screening among 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN participants.

Juul Hubert, Dana Moldovanu, Isabelle van den Bosch, Jeanine E Roeters van Lennep, Harry J de Koning, Carlijn M van der Aalst

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Juul HubertDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands. a.hubert@erasmusmc.nl.
Dana MoldovanuDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands.
Isabelle van den BoschDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands.
Jeanine E Roeters van LennepDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Cardiovascular Institute, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands.
Carlijn M van der AalstDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme NL9710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementing a tailored approach that addresses both socioeconomic status (SES)-specific and sex-specific needs may enhance the effectiveness of information delivery, thereby potentially increasing lung cancer screening uptake. However, to date, there is a gap in knowledge regarding how recruitment strategies can be best adapted to these factors. This study investigates recruitment preferences among participants of the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN study, the European implementation trial for lung cancer screening.

methodsAn online questionnaire regarding reasons for participating (or not) in lung cancer screening and recruitment preferences was sent to 848 Dutch individuals, aged 60-79 years. All participants were randomized previously within the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN study. Hereafter, two focus groups were conducted with a subsample of these participants (n = 14) to gain deeper insights into their responses. Data were analyzed using SPSS software.

resultsOf 479 respondents (56.5%) with fully completed questionnaires, 377 (78.7%) preferred to be informed about lung cancer screening via email. This preference is significantly higher among the high and middle SES compared to those with lower SES (84.3% and 83.2%, versus 68.2%, p < .001). Only 9.8% (n = 47) expressed a desire to be contacted exclusively through a paper-based communication. The latter preference was primarily observed among individuals with a low SES, in comparison to those with middle or high SES (53.2% versus 23.4% and 23.4%). A total of 43.4% indicated that they would appreciate the integration of lifestyle advice within screening. Men were more open to this option than women (p = 0.018). In terms of sex-related differences, recruitment preferences were comparable between men and women. The focus groups revealed that participants preferred to receive the results by email rather than by post, to reduce waiting time and thereby alleviate anxiety. No added value was seen in recruitment being conducted through their general practitioner. Both of these statements were supported by the vast majority of participants.

conclusionsRecruitment for (lung) cancer screening should focus primarily on providing clear and concise information - independent of sex. A majority of participants prefer digital information delivery. Nevertheless, maintaining the option of paper-based information for lower SES groups may be essential to ensure inclusive and equitable access.

trial registrationClinical trial registration NTR-new: NL9710. Registered on 31 August 2021.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsPatient PreferencePatient SelectionAgedFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer screeningHealth communicationHealth literacyInformation needsLung cancerRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID41514219
PMCPMC12882528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.