ArticleCHEST pulmonary2025
Understanding Patient Perspectives on Digital Smoking History Data Collection.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer screening with an annual low-dose CT scan is recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for high-risk patients based on age (50-80 years of age) and smoking history (≥ 20 pack-years). Inaccurate smoking history data in the electronic health record (EHR) pose a challenge to identifying eligible patients. Digital strategies to collect patient-generated health data (PGHD) are a potential solution to elicit complete smoking histories directly from patients to then integrate into their EHR. Research Question: How do patients perceive and experience the use of digital outreach strategies to collect smoking history data to determine lung cancer screening eligibility? Study Design and Methods: As part of a quality improvement initiative, semistructured qualitative interviews were completed with a diverse group of patients who had received a request to complete a digital smoking history survey. Rapid analytical methods were used. Results: We completed 20 interviews with patients who did (n = 9) and did not (n = 11) complete the digital smoking history survey. Participants described varied preferences for digitally self-updating their smoking histories. Four themes emerged regarding barriers to uptake including (1) participants prefer to update their health record with a clinician, (2) technologic barriers influence participant engagement with digital PGHD collection strategies, (3) multiple options for collecting smoking frequency are needed to align with a variety of behaviors, and (4) participants have mixed perceptions of the value of accurate and updated EHR smoking data. Interpretation: Our findings highlight the need to address barriers to collection of digital PGHD to optimize reach and uptake. Using PGHD to obtain an updated and accurate smoking history has important implications, and incorporating patient education, strategies to overcome technologic barriers, and multiple metric options to collect smoking history may improve use.
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.