ArticleBMC public health2026
Enhancing lung cancer screening through 'saved by the scan': insights from a multipronged public service advertising campaign.
Article 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.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake remains low nationally, with disproportionate underuse in racial and ethnic minority populations. This study descriptively evaluated the reach, engagement, and temporal screening trends associated with a multipronged, bilingual, minority-focused public service awareness campaign, "Saved by the Scan" (SBTS), implemented in partnership with a large minority-serving health system in South Florida.
methodsThis was a retrospective, multi-site study within a large minority-serving health system in South Florida that evaluated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) volumes and SBTS campaign performance. SBTS, developed by the American Lung Association, was delivered using traditional (newspapers, billboards, bus shelters) and digital (email, social media, search) modalities in English and Spanish. Implementation outcomes included campaign reach, engagement, and tracked conversions, and service outcomes included annual LDCT volumes. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics.
resultsBetween 2019 and 2023, 11,175 individuals underwent LDCT. During the campaign reached an estimated 4,607,273 individuals through traditional out-of-home media with campaign tactics including newspaper, billboards, and bus shelters. Another approach was the use of direct email. Out of 133,554 emails sent, 36,877 (27.2%) were opened, with a 6.4% click-to-open rate. For the digital media campaign through using online search, digital display, Facebook and Instagram there was a combined 1,768,438 social media impressions with approximately 16,791 (0.9%) links clicked. Total number of conversions (i.e. LDCT performed) using digital media was estimated to be 337 individuals - 232 (69%) from emails and 105 (31%) from social media. Annual LDCT volumes were 1,716 in 2019, 1,337 in 2020 (reflecting a decline during the COVID-19 pandemic), 2,185 in 2021 (+ 63% vs. 2020), 2,652 in 2022 (+ 21% vs. 2021), and 3,285 in 2023 (+ 24% vs. 2022), with the steepest increase occurring after SBTS launch in late 2021.
conclusionsThis multipronged, bilingual SBTS campaign was associated with increased LDCT use in a predominantly Hispanic community, highlighting the potential of health system-led, minority-focused implementation efforts to enhance LCS uptake. Digital media yielded modest conversion rates but substantial reach, supporting their role as a complementary strategy to traditional media in minority-focused screening implementation campaigns.
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.