ArticleBMC health services research2026
Process perspectives on lung cancer screening in primary care: a qualitative study of providers and staff in an urban U.S. healthcare system.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe limited integration of important aspects of lung cancer screening (LCS) into routine primary care practice has contributed to suboptimal LCS rates nationwide. We aimed to shed light on the pathways that facilitate LCS referral/order and completion in primary care patients, focusing on the screening workflows and processes.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 providers and staff members at Jefferson Health, an urban U.S. health system that employs a hybrid approach to LCS. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsWe identified eight themes related to care coordination and systemic challenges in LCS processes in primary care. While medical assistants documented smoking status, physicians assessed eligibility and made referrals. Physicians generally abridged SDM discussions, deferring complete protocols to the LCS program. Referral practices varied, although most providers preferred referring patients to the dedicated LCS program due to time constraints, confidence in the program’s structure, and the streamlined follow-up process. Despite general guideline awareness, gaps remained in understanding specific criteria, such as age and smoking history. Providers emphasized the need to improve documentation of smoking history, integrate LCS quality metrics, and implement electronic health record interventions to support eligibility assessments, referrals, counseling, and timely follow-up.
conclusionsOptimizing LCS delivery in primary care requires investment in electronic health record-based decision support, structured referral pathways, and provider education to close knowledge gaps and reduce workflow burdens. Hybrid approaches that integrate centralized program support with primary care engagement may enhance screening uptake and quality. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.