ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Using Digital Outreach to Identify Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04083859 (A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial of a Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening), which is not on this 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.
A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial of a Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening: mPATH-Lung (Mobile Patient Technology for Health-Lung)
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States, but screening rates among high-risk adults remain low. In a multisite randomized trial conducted in two large academic health systems in North Carolina, we found that a digital health intervention delivered to patients at home increased lung screening (LCS) rates. While LCS reduces mortality, identifying and reaching eligible patients is challenging and limits screening uptake.
objectiveThis study examines the reach of a digital health outreach strategy for determining eligibility for LCS.
designA secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial.
participantsIndividuals aged 50 to 77 with a history of cigarette smoking received an invitation to use the digital health program at two academic health systems in North Carolina. MAIN MEASURES: Reach of the engagement strategy overall and within demographic subgroups. Reach is defined by the proportion of patients completing LCS eligibility questions within 16 weeks of portal or text invitation. KEY
resultsOf 26,909 individuals invited, 3,049 (11%) completed LCS eligibility questions within 16 weeks of invitation. Reach was higher among females, those aged 50-64, individuals with high/medium socioeconomic status, those with commercial insurance, and urban residents. White participants had higher reach compared to Black and Hispanic participants (12.8% vs 8.6% and 8.0%). Within 16 weeks of invitation, portal messages were read by 65.5% of recipients, with 17.1% visiting the mPATH-Lung landing page. Sending text invitations to those not reachable by portal expanded reach by 604 participants (from 2,445 to 3,409), compared to portal invitations alone.
conclusionsThis scalable outreach strategy engaged a large population for lung cancer screening. However, reach was found to be lower in historically underrepresented groups. Future strategies should continue leveraging multiple communication channels, including a cellphone text primary strategy, to maximize engagement and potentially improve equitable access to healthcare services. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04083859, registered September 10, 2019. Available at: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT04083859.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870174What 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.