Dataset Information

A qualitative study exploring patient motivations for screening for lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest for lung cancer screening of heavy smokers was given a 'B' rating by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, and gained widespread insurance coverage in the U.S. in 2015. Lung cancer screening has since had low uptake. However, for those that do choose to screen, little is known about patient motivations for completing screening in real-world practice.

Objective

To explore the motivations for screening-eligible patients to screen for lung cancer.

Methods

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 LDCT screen-completed men and women who were members of an integrated mixed-model healthcare system in Washington State. From June to September 2015, participants were recruited and individual interviews performed about motivations to screen for lung cancer. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive content analysis by three investigators.

Results

Four primary themes emerged as motivations for completing LDCT lung cancer screening: 1) trust in the referring clinician; 2) early-detection benefit; 3) low or limited harm perception; and 4) friends or family with advanced cancer.

Conclusion

Participants in our study were primarily motivated to screen for lung cancer based on perceived benefit of early-detection, absence of safety concerns, and personal relationships. Our findings provide new insights about patient motivations to screen, and can potentially be used to improve lung cancer screening uptake and shared decision-making processes.

SUBMITTER: Roth JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6033377 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative study exploring patient motivations for screening for lung cancer.

Roth Joshua A JA Carter-Harris Lisa L Brandzel Susan S Buist Diana S M DSM Wernli Karen J KJ

PloS one 20180705 7

<h4>Background</h4>Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest for lung cancer screening of heavy smokers was given a 'B' rating by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, and gained widespread insurance coverage in the U.S. in 2015. Lung cancer screening has since had low uptake. However, for those that do choose to screen, little is known about patient motivations for completing screening in real-world practice.<h4>Objective</h4>To explore the motivations for screening-e ...[more]

PMID: 29975709

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening.Research questionHow do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress?Study design and methodsWe conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis.ResultsClinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress.InterpretationTension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE:To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN:Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS:We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH:Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS:Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Project description:Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey. Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough early detection of lung cancer through screening is associated with better prognosis, most lung cancers are diagnosed among unscreened individuals. We therefore sought to characterize pathways to lung cancer diagnosis among unscreened individuals.MethodsParticipants were individuals with lung cancer who did not undergo asymptomatic lung cancer screening (n = 13) and healthcare providers who may be involved in the pathway to lung cancer diagnosis (n = 13). We conducted semi-structured interviews to identify themes in lung cancer patients' narratives of their cancer diagnoses and providers' personal and/or professional experiences of various pathways to lung cancer diagnoses, to identify delays in diagnosis. We audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews in two stages. First, we conducted deductive coding using three time-period intervals from the Models of Pathways to Treatment framework: appraisal, help-seeking, and diagnostic (i.e., excluding pre-treatment). Second, we conducted inductive coding to identify themes within each time-period interval, and classified these themes as either barriers or facilitators to diagnosis. Coding and thematic summarization were completed independently by two separate analysts who discussed for consensus.ResultsEight of the patient participants had formerly smoked, and five had never smoked. We identified eight barrier/facilitator themes within the three time-period intervals. Within the appraisal interval, the barrier theme was (1) minimization or misattribution of symptoms, and the facilitator theme was (2) acknowledgment of symptoms. Within the help-seeking interval, the barrier theme was (3) hesitancy to seek care, and the facilitator theme was (4) routine care. Within the diagnosis interval, barrier themes were (5) health system challenges, and (6) social determinants of health; and facilitator themes were (7) severe symptoms and known risk factors, and (8) self-advocacy. Many themes were interrelated, including minimization or misattribution of symptoms and hesitancy to seek care, which may collectively contribute to care and imaging delays.ConclusionsInterventions to reduce hesitancy to seek care may facilitate timely lung cancer diagnoses. More prompt referral to imaging-especially computed tomography (CT)-among symptomatic patients, along with patient self-advocacy for imaging, may reduce delays in diagnosis.

Dataset Information

A qualitative study exploring patient motivations for screening for lung cancer.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A qualitative study exploring patient motivations for screening for lung cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets