ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Development and psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for lung cancer screening decisions (DQI-LCS).
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals. As the screening procedure has both potential benefits and harms, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services mandates a shared decision-making (SDM) discussion prior to the initial LCS. We evaluated the psychometric properties of a decision quality instrument for LCS (DQI-LCS) that assesses whether patients (1) were informed about their options (knowledge), (2) made a screening decision in line with their preferences (goal concordance), and (3) underwent an optimal SDM process (measured using the SDM Process measure [SDMP_4]).
methodsSecondary analysis of survey data with patients who underwent LCS at tertiary care medical centers in the US within 12 months of the survey. Psychometric evaluation examined the DQI knowledge measure for item retention and deletion, feasibility, test-retest reliability, and validity of the three components of the DQI-LCS.
resultsThe final sample (N = 264) was 48.0% female and had a mean age of 64.8. One knowledge item (KQ13) was dropped as it had a poor index of discrimination, resulting in a 15-item LCS knowledge measure (LCS-15). We also developed a brief knowledge measure with 5 items (LCS-5). Overall, the DQI-LCS was feasible to complete (under 5% missing data for all items). However, only the overall LCS-15 knowledge measure had acceptable test-retest reliability. The SURE score was positively associated with knowledge, demonstrating construct validity of the knowledge component. When there was goal concordance, there was a greater probability of the participant reporting that they would make the same decision again and be screened every year, demonstrating predictive validity of the goal concordance measure. Finally, higher SDMP_4 scores were associated with higher SURE scores, demonstrating predictive validity of SDMP_4. However, we did not find concurrent validity of SDMP_4 with CollaboRATE.
conclusionsOverall, there is evidence that the DQI-LCS was feasible to complete, had moderate test-retest reliability, and acceptable construct and predictive validity. A limitation is that our sample only included people who had undergone LCS. With further evaluation, the validated DQI-LCS can be a quality metric for assessing whether patients are receiving guideline-concordant care for LCS.
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.