A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Reuland DS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5765651 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care.
Reuland Daniel S DS Cubillos Laura L Brenner Alison T AT Harris Russell P RP Minish Bailey B Pignone Michael P MP
BMC medical informatics and decision making 20180112 1
<h4>Background</h4>The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceGuidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled.InterventionA web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention.Main outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months.ResultsOf 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.
| S-EPMC10469267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough colorectal cancer screening is recommended by major policy-making organizations, rates of screening remain low. Our aim was to develop a patient-directed, computer-based decision aid about colorectal cancer screening and investigate whether it could increase patient interest in screening.MethodsWe used content from evidence-based literature reviews and our previous decision aid research to develop a prototype. We performed two rounds of usability testing with representative patients to revise the content and format. The final decision aid consisted of an introductory segment, four test-specific segments, and information to allow comparison of the tests across several key parameters. We then conducted a before-after uncontrolled trial of 80 patients 50-75 years old recruited from an academic internal medicine practice.ResultsMean viewing time was 19 minutes. The decision aid improved patients' intent to ask providers for screening from a mean score of 2.8 (1 = not at all likely to ask, 4 = very likely to ask) before viewing the decision aid to 3.2 afterwards (difference, 0.4; p < 0.0001, paired t-test). Most found the aid useful and reported that it improved their knowledge about screening. Sixty percent said they were ready to be tested, 18% needed more information, and 22% were not ready to be screened. Within 6 months of viewing, 43% of patients had completed screening tests.ConclusionWe conclude that a computer-based decision aid can increase patient intent to be screened and increase interest in screening.Practice implicationsThis decision aid can be viewed by patients prior to provider appointments to increase motivation to be screened and to help them decide about which modality to use for screening. Further work is required to integrate the decision aid with other practice change strategies to raise screening rates to target levels.
| S-EPMC1318488 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine if a decision aid improves knowledge of lung cancer screening benefits and harms and which benefits and harms are most valued.DesignPre-post study.SettingOnline.Participants219 current or former (quit within the previous 15 years) smokers ages 55-80 with at least 30 pack-years of smoking.InterventionLung cancer screening video decision aid.Main measuresScreening knowledge tested by 10 pre-post questions and value of benefits and harms (reducing chance of death from lung cancer, risk of being diagnosed, false positives, biopsies, complications of biopsies and out-of-pocket costs) assessed through rating (1-5 scale) and ranking (top three ranked).ResultsMean age was 64.7±6.1, 42.5% were male, 75.4% white, 48.4% married, 28.9% with less than a college degree and 67.6% with income <US$50 000. Knowledge improved postdecision aid (pre 2.8±1.8 vs post 5.8±2.3, diff +3.0, 95% CI 2.7 to 3.3; p<0.001). For values, reducing the chance of death from lung cancer was rated and ranked highest overall (rating 4.3±1.0; 59.4% ranked first). Among harms, avoiding complications (3.7±1.3) and out-of-pocket costs (3.7±1.2) rated highest. Thirty-four per cent ranked one of four harms highest: avoiding costs 13.2%, false positives 7.3%, biopsies 7.3%, complications 5.9%. Screening intent was balanced (1-4 scale; 1-not likely 21.0%, 4-very likely 26.9%). Those 'not likely' to screen had greater improvement in pre-post knowledge scores and more frequently ranked a harm first than those 'very likely' to screen (pre-post diff:+3.5 vs +2.6, diff +0.9; 95% CI 0.1 to 1.8; p=0.023; one of four harms ranked first: 28.4% vs 11.3%, p<0.001).ConclusionsOur decision aid increased lung cancer screening knowledge among a diverse sample of screen-eligible respondents. Although a majority valued 'reducing the chance of death from lung cancer' highest, a substantial proportion identified harms as most important. Knowledge improvement and ranking harms highest were associated with lower intention to screen.
| S-EPMC8273450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAfrican-American men have an elevated risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Shared decision-making (SDM) about prostate cancer screening is recommended but does not always occur.MethodsWe pilot-tested an online decision aid (DA) in primary care settings using a pre/postevaluation design among African-American men ages 45 to 70 years. Men completed surveys before and after using the DA, which had interactive segments (e.g., values clarification) and provided individualized assessment of prostate cancer risk. Primary outcomes included prostate cancer knowledge, confidence in ability to make informed decisions, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with the decision. Immediately after the clinical visit, patients reported the degree to which they were engaged by their provider in SDM.ResultsAmong this sample of men (n = 49), use of the DA was associated with increased knowledge about prostate cancer [mean = 55.3% vs. 71.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 9.8-22.1; P < 0.001], reduced decisional conflict (mean = 33.4 vs. 23.6; 95% CI, -18.1 to -1.6; P = 0.002) on a scale from 0 to 100, and a decreased preference to be screened (88% vs. 69%; 95% CI, 0.09-0.64; P = 0.01). Most (89%) reported that the DA prepared them well/very well for SDM with their provider. Following the clinical visit with providers, scores on perceived involvement in SDM were 68.1 (SD 29.1) on a 0 to 100 scale.ConclusionsThe DA improved men's knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and promoted the perception of being prepared for SDM.ImpactFindings suggest that use of an online DA to improve SDM outcomes warrants further testing in a future trial.
| S-EPMC8448197 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.
| S-EPMC8260603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe US Preventative Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making (SDM) between women aged 40 and 49 years and their physician regarding timing of mammography screening. This preliminary study evaluates women's and physician's satisfaction using Breast Cancer Risk Estimator & Decision Aid (BCARE-DA), a shared decision aid utilized during the clinical encounter, and examines SDM quality for these encounters.MethodsFifty-three women and their physician utilized BCARE-DA and completed surveys measuring satisfaction with Likert-type and open-ended items and women completed the Decision Conflict Scale. Clinic visit transcripts were evaluated for SDM quality using Observer OPTION-5 and Breast Cancer Screening Decision Core Components Checklist.ResultsWomen and physicians positively evaluated BCARE-DA. Women had low decision conflict. Physicians demonstrated moderate effort toward SDM, greatest in offering options, and lowest for team talk. Physicians demonstrated 2/3 of core SDM elements in 80% to 100% of encounters.ConclusionPreliminary findings suggest specific promise for such Decision Aids to facilitate SDM through understanding of personal risks for breast cancer formulated within each screening option, while some SDM elements likely require additional facilitating.
| S-EPMC8326620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Informed decision making has been highlighted as an important aspect of lung cancer screening programs. This study seeks to assess the efficacy of a web-based patient decision aid for lung cancer screening, www.shouldiscreen.com.A before-and-after study (August through December 2014) was conducted where participants navigated a web-based decision aid that provided information about low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening. Using an established prediction model, the decision aid computed baseline lung cancer risk and an individual's chances of benefiting from, and risk of being harmed by, screening. Outcome measures included knowledge of lung cancer risk factors and lung cancer screening, decisional conflict, concordance, and acceptability of the decision aid. Data were collected from 60 participants who were current or former smokers, had no history of lung cancer, and had not received a chest computed tomographic scan in the previous year. Analysis took place in 2015.Knowledge increased after seeing the decision aid compared with before (p<0.001), whereas the score on the Decisional Conflict Scale decreased (p<0.001). Concordance between a participant's preference to screen and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation improved after seeing the decision aid (p<0.001). Risk perceptions among the screen-ineligible group changed (n=49), contrary to those who were eligible (n=11). Ninety-seven percent of the participants reported that the decision aid was likely useful for lung cancer screening decision making.The web-based decision aid should be a helpful resource for individuals considering lung cancer screening, as well as for practitioners and health systems with lung cancer screening programs.
| S-EPMC5544524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWeb-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool).ObjectiveThis study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center.MethodsUsability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial.ResultsIn the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation.ConclusionsOur findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.
| S-EPMC9034418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe describe primary care providers' current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS).MethodsFamily, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns.ResultsOf 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow-ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision-making about LCS, although only about one-third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04).ConclusionsWithin the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow-up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision-making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.
| S-EPMC7926026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe predominant oncologist-led model in many countries is unsustainable to meet the needs of a growing cohort of breast cancer survivors (BCS). Despite available alternative models, adoption rates have been poor. To help BCS navigate survivorship care, we aimed to systematically develop a decision aid (DA) to guide their choice of follow-up care model and evaluate its acceptability and usability among BCS and health care providers (HCPs).MethodsWe recruited BCS aged ≥ 21 years who have completed primary treatment and understand English. BCS receiving palliative care or with cognitive impairment were excluded. HCPs who routinely discussed post-treatment care with BCS were purposively sampled based on disciplines. Each participant reviewed the DA during a semi-structured interview using the 'think aloud' approach and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and directed content analysis were used.ResultsWe conducted three rounds of alpha testing with 15 BCS and 8 HCPs. All BCS found the final DA prototype easy to navigate with sufficient interactivity. The information imbalance favouring the shared care option perceived by 60% of BCS in early rounds was rectified. The length of DA was optimized to be 'just right'. Key revisions made included (1) presenting care options side-by-side to improve perceived information balance, (2) creating dedicated sections explaining HCPs' care roles to address gaps in health system contextual knowledge, and (3) employing a multicriteria decision analysis method for preference clarification exercise to reflect the user's openness towards shared care. Most BCS (73%) found the DA useful for decision-making, and 93% were willing to discuss the DA with their HCPs. Most HCPs (88%) agreed that the DA was a reliable tool and would be easily integrated into routine care.ConclusionsOur experience highlighted the need to provide contextual information on the health care system for decisions related to care delivery. Developers should address potential variability within the care model and clarify inherent biases, such as low confidence levels in primary care. Future work could expand on the developed DA's informational structure to apply to other care models and leverage artificial intelligence to optimize information delivery.
| S-EPMC9753367 | biostudies-literature