Dataset Information

A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Cancer Society recently released lung screening guidelines that include smoking cessation counseling for smokers undergoing screening. Previous work indicates that smoking behaviors and risk perceptions of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants were relatively unchanged. We explored American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN)/NLST former and current smokers' risk perceptions specifically to (a) determine whether lung screening is a cue for behavior change, (b) elucidate risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, and (c) explore postscreening behavioral intentions and changes.

Methods

A random sample of 35 participants from 4 ACRIN sites were qualitatively interviewed 1-2 years postscreen. We used a structured interview guide based on Health Belief Model and Self-Regulation Model constructs. Content analyses were conducted with NVivo 8.

Results

Most participants endorsed high-risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, but heightened concern about these risks did not appear to motivate participants to seek screening. Risk perceptions were mostly attributed to participants' heavy smoking histories; former smokers expressed greatly reduced risk. Lung cancer and smoking-related diseases were perceived as very severe although participants endorsed low worry. Current smokers had low confidence in their ability to quit, and none reported quitting following their initial screen.

Conclusions

Lung screening did not appear to be a behavior change cue to action, and high-risk perceptions did not translate into quitting behaviors. Cognitive and emotional dissonance and avoidance strategies may deter engagement in smoking behavior change. Smoking cessation and prevention interventions during lung screening should explore risk perceptions, emotions, and quit confidence.

SUBMITTER: Park ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3934998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography. In February 2015, Medicare announced its decision to cover annual lung screening for patients with a significant smoking history. These guidelines promote smoking cessation treatment as an adjunct to screening, but the frequency and effectiveness of clinician-delivered smoking cessation interventions delivered after lung screening are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the association between the reported clinician-delivered 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist [talk about quitting or recommend stop-smoking medications or recommend counseling], and arrange follow-up) after lung screening and smoking behavior changes.Design, setting, and participantsA matched case-control study (cases were quitters and controls were continued smokers) of 3336 NLST participants who were smokers at enrollment examined participants' rates and patterns of 5A delivery after a lung screen and reported smoking cessation behaviors.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of the clinician-delivered 5As and associated smoking cessation after lung screening.ResultsDelivery of the 5As 1 year after screening were as follows: ask, 77.2%; advise, 75.6%; assess, 63.4%; assist, 56.4%; and arrange follow-up, 10.4%. Receipt of ask, advise, and assess was not significantly associated with quitting in multivariate models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, screening results, nicotine dependence, and motivation to quit. Assist was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and arrange was associated with a 46% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.19-1.79).Conclusions and relevanceAssist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers to smokers who were participating in the NLST were associated with increased quitting; less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. However, rates of assist and arrange follow-up were relatively low. Our findings confirm the need for and benefit of clinicians taking more active intervention steps in helping patients who undergo screening to quit smoking.

Project description:BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is an increasingly used tool for data collection in behavioral research, including smoking cessation studies. As previous addiction research suggests, EMA has the potential to elicit cue reactivity by triggering craving and increasing behavioral awareness. However, there has been limited evaluation of its potential influence on behavior.ObjectiveBy examining the perspectives of research participants enrolled in a tobacco treatment intervention trial, this qualitative analysis aims to understand the potential impact that EMA use may have had on smoking behaviors that may not have otherwise been captured through other study measures.MethodsWe performed a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with participants enrolled in a pilot randomized controlled trial of a tobacco treatment intervention that used SMS text messaging to collect EMA data on smoking behaviors. In the pilot randomized controlled trial, combustible cigarette and e-cigarette use and smoking-related cravings were measured as part of an EMA protocol, in which SMS text messaging served as a smoking diary. SMS text messaging was intended for data collection only and not designed to serve as part of the intervention. After a baseline assessment, participants were asked to record daily nicotine use for 12 weeks by responding to text message prompts that they received 4 times per day. Participants were prompted to share their experiences with the EMA text messaging component of the trial but were not directly asked about the influence of EMA on their behaviors. Transcripts were coded according to the principles of the framework for applied research. The codes were then examined, summarized, and grouped into themes based on the principles of grounded theory.ResultsInterviews were analyzed for 26 participants. The themes developed from the analysis suggested the potential for EMA, in the form of an SMS text messaging smoking diary, to influence participants' smoking behaviors. The perceived impacts of EMA text messaging on smoking behaviors were polarized; some participants emphasized the positive impacts of text messages on their efforts to reduce smoking, while others stressed the ways that text messaging negatively impacted their smoking reduction efforts. These contrasting experiences were captured by themes reflecting the positive impacts on smoking behaviors, including increased awareness of smoking behaviors and a sense of accountability, and the negative impacts on emotions and smoking behaviors, including provoking a sense of guilt and triggering smoking behaviors.ConclusionsThe collection of EMA smoking behavior data via SMS text messaging may influence the behaviors and perceptions of participants in tobacco treatment interventions. More research is needed to determine the magnitude of impact and mechanisms, to account for the potential effects of EMA. A broader discussion of the unintended effects introduced by EMA use is warranted among the research community.

Project description:BackgroundCigarette smoking is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease. Understanding smokers' responses to the pandemic will help assess its public health impact and inform future public health and provider messages to smokers.ObjectiveTo assess risk perceptions and change in tobacco use among current and former smokers during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCross-sectional survey conducted in May-July 2020 (55% response rate) PARTICIPANTS: 694 current and former daily smokers (mean age 53, 40% male, 78% white) who had been hospitalized pre-COVID-19 and enrolled into a smoking cessation clinical trial at hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.Main measuresPerceived risk of COVID-19 due to tobacco use; changes in tobacco consumption and interest in quitting tobacco use; self-reported quitting and relapse since January 2020.Key results68% (95% CI, 65-72%) of respondents believed that smoking increases the risk of contracting COVID-19 or having a more severe case. In adjusted analyses, perceived risk was higher in Massachusetts where COVID-19 had already surged than in Pennsylvania and Tennessee which were pre-surge during survey administration (AOR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.07-2.28). Higher perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with increased interest in quitting smoking (AOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01-2.92). During the pandemic, 32% (95% CI, 27-37%) of smokers increased, 37% (95% CI, 33-42%) decreased, and 31% (95% CI, 26-35%) did not change their cigarette consumption. Increased smoking was associated with higher perceived stress (AOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16-1.91). Overall, 11% (95% CI, 8-14%) of respondents who smoked in January 2020 (pre-COVID-19) had quit smoking at survey (mean, 6 months later) while 28% (95% CI, 22-34%) of former smokers relapsed. Higher perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with higher odds of quitting and lower odds of relapse.ConclusionsMost smokers believed that smoking increased COVID-19 risk. Smokers' responses to the pandemic varied, with increased smoking related to stress and increased quitting associated with perceived COVID-19 vulnerability.

Project description:Background Subsolid pulmonary nodules, comprising pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) and part-solid nodules (PSNs), have a high risk of indolent malignancy. Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) nodule management guidelines are based on expert opinion and lack independent validation. Purpose To evaluate Lung-RADS estimates of the malignancy rates of subsolid nodules, using nodules from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and to compare Lung-RADS to the NELSON trial classification as well as the Brock University calculator. Materials and Methods Subsets of GGNs and PSNs were selected from the NLST for this retrospective study. A thoracic radiologist reviewed the baseline and follow-up CT images, confirmed that they were true subsolid nodules, and measured the nodules. The primary outcome for each nodule was the development of malignancy within the follow-up period (median, 6.5 years). Nodules were stratified according to Lung-RADS, NELSON trial criteria, and the Brock model. For analyses, nodule subsets were weighted on the basis of frequency in the NLST data set. Nodule stratification models were tested by using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results A total of 622 nodules were evaluated, of which 434 nodules were subsolid. At baseline, 304 nodules were classified as Lung-RADS category 2, with a malignancy rate of 3%, which is greater than the 1% in Lung-RADS (P = .004). The malignancy rate for GGNs smaller than 10 mm (two of 129, 1.3%) was smaller than that for GGNs measuring 10-19 mm (11 of 153, 6%) (P = .01). The malignancy rate for Lung-RADS category 3 was 14% (13 of 67), which is greater than the reported 2% in Lung-RADS (P < .001). The Brock model predicted malignancy better than Lung-RADS and the NELSON trial scheme (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.78, 0.70, and 0.67, respectively; P = .02 for Brock model vs NELSON trial scheme). Conclusion Subsolid nodules classified as Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) categories 2 and 3 have a higher risk of malignancy than reported. The Brock risk calculator performed better than measurement-based classification schemes such as Lung-RADS. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kauczor and von Stackelberg in this issue.

Project description:BackgroundAnnual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer has been recommended for high-risk individuals, but the necessity of yearly low-dose CT in all eligible individuals is uncertain. This study examined rates of lung cancer in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants who had a negative prevalence (initial) low-dose CT screen to explore whether less frequent screening could be justified in some lower-risk subpopulations.MethodsWe did a retrospective cohort analysis of data from the NLST, a randomised, multicentre screening trial comparing three annual low-dose CT assessments with three annual chest radiographs for the early detection of lung cancer in high-risk, eligible individuals (aged 55-74 years with at least a 30 pack-year history of cigarette smoking, and, if a former smoker, had quit within the past 15 years), recruited from US medical centres between Aug 5, 2002, and April 26, 2004. Participants were followed up for up to 5 years after their last annual screen. For the purposes of this analysis, our cohort consisted of all NLST participants who had received a low-dose CT prevalence (T0) screen. We determined the frequency, stage, histology, study year of diagnosis, and incidence of lung cancer, as well as overall and lung cancer-specific mortality, and whether lung cancers were detected as a result of screening or within 1 year of a negative screen. We also estimated the effect on mortality if the first annual (T1) screen in participants with a negative T0 screen had not been done. The NLST is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00047385.FindingsOur cohort consisted of 26 231 participants assigned to the low-dose CT screening group who had undergone their T0 screen. The 19 066 participants with a negative T0 screen had a lower incidence of lung cancer than did all 26 231 T0-screened participants (371·88 [95% CI 337·97-408·26] per 100 000 person-years vs 661·23 [622·07-702·21]) and had lower lung cancer-related mortality (185·82 [95% CI 162·17-211·93] per 100 000 person-years vs 277·20 [252·28-303·90]). The yield of lung cancer at the T1 screen among participants with a negative T0 screen was 0·34% (62 screen-detected cancers out of 18 121 screened participants), compared with a yield at the T0 screen among all T0-screened participants of 1·0% (267 of 26 231). We estimated that if the T1 screen had not been done in the T0 negative group, at most, an additional 28 participants in the T0 negative group would have died from lung cancer (a rise in mortality from 185·82 [95% CI 162·17-211·93] per 100 000 person-years to 212·14 [186·80-239·96]) over the course of the trial.InterpretationParticipants with a negative low-dose CT prevalence screen had a lower incidence of lung cancer and lung cancer-specific mortality than did all participants who underwent a prevalence screen. Because overly frequent screening has associated harms, increasing the interval between screens in participants with a negative low-dose CT prevalence screen might be warranted.FundingNone.