Search

BackgroundLung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed. ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions. MethodsA pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk—a web-based tailored computer program—while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician. ResultsKnowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions. ConclusionsLungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694

To compare the efficacy of two interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening participation and forward stage movement of colorectal cancer screening adoption among first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with adenomatous polyps. One hundred fifty-eight first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with adenomatous polyps were randomly assigned to receive one of two interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening. Participants received either a tailored telephone counseling plus brochures intervention or a non-tailored print brochures intervention. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months post-baseline. Group differences and the effect of the interventions on adherence and stage movement for colorectal cancer screening were examined using t-tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression. Individuals in the tailored telephone counseling plus brochures group were significantly more likely to complete colorectal cancer screening and to move forward on stage of change for fecal occult blood test, any colorectal cancer test stage and stage of the risk-appropriate test compared with individuals in the non-tailored brochure group at 3 months post-baseline. A tailored telephone counseling plus brochures intervention successfully promoted forward stage movement and colorectal cancer screening adherence among first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with adenomatous polyps.

Objective: Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual's perspective. Methods: Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables. Results: Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To explore knowledge and beliefs of long-term smokers about lung cancer, associated risk factors and lung cancer screening. Design Qualitative study theoretically framed by the expanded Health Belief Model based on four focus group discussions. Content analysis was performed to identify themes of knowledge and beliefs about lung cancer, associated risk factors and lung cancer screening among long-term smokers' who had and had not been screened for lung cancer. Methods Twenty-six long-term smokers were recruited; two groups ( n = 9; n = 3) had recently been screened and two groups ( n = 7; n = 7) had never been screened. Results While most agreed lung cancer is deadly, confusion or inaccurate information exists regarding the causes and associated risk factors. Knowledge related to lung cancer screening and how it is performed was low; awareness of long-term smoking's association with lung cancer risk remains suboptimal. Perceived benefits of screening identified include: (i) finding lung cancer early; (ii) giving peace of mind; and (iii) motivation to quit smoking. Perceived barriers to screening identified include: (i) inconvenience; (ii) distrust; and (iii) stigma. Conclusions Perceived barriers to lung cancer screening, such as distrust and stigma, must be addressed as lung cancer screening becomes more widely implemented. Heightened levels of health-care system distrust may impact successful implementation of screening programmes. Perceived smoking-related stigma may lead to low levels of patient engagement with medical care and decreased cancer screening participation. It is also important to determine modifiable targets for intervention to enhance the shared decision-making process between health-care providers and their high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer screening is effective but underused. Guidelines for which tests are recommended and at what intervals depend on specific risks. We developed a tablet-based Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) that asks questions about risk prior to appointments and generates tailored printouts for patients and physicians summarizing and matching risk factors with guideline-based recommendations. Methods: Randomized controlled trial among patients who: (i) used CRIS and they and their physicians received tailored printouts; (ii) used CRIS to answer questions but received standard information about cancer screening while their physicians received a standard electronic chart prompt indicating they were age-eligible but not currently adherent for colorectal cancer screening; or (iii) comprised a no-contact group that neither used CRIS nor received any information while their physicians received the standard prompt. Participation in testing was assessed via electronic medical record at 12 months. Results: Participation in any colorectal cancer testing was three times higher for those who used the CRIS and received any printed materials, compared with no-contact controls (47% vs. 16%; P < 0.0001).AmongCRIS users ages 50 and older, participation in any testing was higher in the tailored group (53% vs. 44%, P=0.023). Conclusion: Use of CRIS and receipt of any information facilitated participation in testing. There was more testing participation in the CRIS-tailored than nontailored group. Impact: Asking patients questions about their specific risk factors and giving them and their providers information just prior to an appointment may increase participation in colorectal cancer testing. Tailoring the information has some added benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The dose of alcohol used in EUS-CPN is not standardized. The objective was to compare the safety of 20 mL alcohol versus 10 mL alcohol during EUS-CPN for patients with pancreatic cancer-related pain. Methods. 20 patients were selected to receive 10 mL or 20 mL of alcohol during EUS-CPN. Follow up was done at baseline, 24 hours, and weekly. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed at baseline, week 2, week 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter until pain returned. Results. There were no major complications in both groups. Minor self-limited adverse effects were seen in 6 (30%) subjects and included lightheadedness in 1 (5%), transient diarrhea in 2 (10%), and transient nausea and vomiting in 3. Pain relief was similar in both groups: 80% in the 10 mL group and 100% in the 20 mL group (p = 0.21). The mean (± SD) duration of pain relief in the 10 mL and 20 mL groups was 7.9 ± 10.8 and 8.4 ± 9.2 weeks, respectively. 30% of patients in each group had complete pain relief. Conclusions. EUS-CPN using 20 mL of alcohol is safe. Similar clinical outcomes were seen in both groups. Further investigations to confirm these findings are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS), a computerized program that“matches” objective cancer risks to appropriate risk management recommendations, was designed to facilitate patient-clinician discussion. We evaluated CRIS in primary care settings via a single-group, self-report, pretest-posttest design. Participants completed baseline telephone surveys, used CRIS during clinic visits, and completed follow-up surveys 1 to 2 months postvisit. Compared with proportions reporting having had discussions at baseline, significantly greater proportions of participants reported having discussed tamoxifen, genetic counseling, and colonoscopy, as appropriate, after using CRIS. Most (79%) reported CRIS had“caused” their discussion. CRIS is an easily used, disseminable program that showed promising results in primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]