Understanding barriers to lung cancer screening in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coughlin JM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7330370 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is effective at reducing lung cancer mortality in high-risk current and former smokers. Despite the fact that screening is recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), few eligible patients are screened. We set out to study the barriers to LCS by surveying primary care physicians (PCPs).We surveyed a randomly selected sample of 1384 eligible PCPs between January and October 2015, using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, though surveys sent by mail, fax, and e-mail. The survey included questions regarding knowledge of LCS guidelines, utilization of LCS over the prior 12 months, and perceptions of barriers to LCS. Training background, years in practice, practice type, and demographics were also collected.The survey response rate was 18%. Responders and nonresponders did not differ by practice or demographic characteristics. Of the respondents, 47% indicated that LCS was recommended by the USPSTF, 52% had referred at least one patient for LDCT, and 12% had referred at least one patient to a LCS program over the prior 12 months. Perceived barriers to LCS included uncertainty regarding ther benefit of LCS, concern regarding insurance coverage, and the harm of LCS.Although LCS is recommended by the USPSTF, LDCT is utilized in a minority of eligible patients, as reported by surveyed PCPs. Approximately half of PCPs are familiar with USPSTF recommendations for LCS and a number of physician barriers to adherence to guidelines exist. Additional study of physician- and system-based interventions to improve adherence to LCS recommendations is needed.
| S-EPMC5075492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined the readiness of primary care clinicians to implement lung cancer screening programs in their practice settings in light of recent policy changes in the U.S. Attendees of two large continuing medical education events in Texas held in October and November of 2014 completed surveys about their current lung cancer screening practices and implementation needs. Surveys were completed by 350 participants (57.2% of registered attendees). Although 89.5% of participants routinely screened their patients for tobacco use, only 10.1% had a formal lung cancer screening program in their practice. More than half (56.0%) planned to refer eligible patients for lung cancer screening, 35.6% were not sure, and 8.3% did not plan to refer. Priority areas for implementing lung cancer screening programs in their settings included 1) greater clarity about coverage by private insurance and Medicare, 2) information about available screening centers offering low-dose computed tomography, 3) patient education and shared decision-making tools, 4) implementation toolkits and training for clinic staff, 5) integrating screening programs in electronic health records, and 6) more clarity about clinical guidelines. Practical needs related to identifying eligible patients, referral to screening centers, and tools for shared decision-making must be addressed before lung cancer screening can be implemented on a national scale.
| S-EPMC4721428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite recent incentives through Medicare (Australia's universal health insurance scheme) to increase retinal screening rates in primary care, comprehensive diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening has not been reached in Australia. The current study aimed to identify key factors affecting the delivery of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in Australian general practices.MethodsA descriptive qualitative study involving in-depth interviews was carried out from November 2019 to March 2020. Using purposive snowballing sampling, 15 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from urban and rural general practices in New South Wales and Western Australia. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data from participants. All interviews were conducted over the phone by one facilitator, and each interview lasted up to 45 min. The Socio-Ecological Model was used to inform the content of the interview topic guides and subsequent data analysis. Recorded data were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify and classify recurrent themes.ResultsOf 15 GPs interviewed, 13 were male doctors, and the mean age was 54.7 ± 15.5 years. Seven participants were practising in urban areas, while eight were practising in regional or remote areas. All participants had access to a direct ophthalmoscope, but none owned retinal cameras. None of the participants reported performing DR screening. Only three participants were aware of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items 12,325 and 12,326 that allow GPs to bill for retinal screening. Seven themes, a combination of facilitators and barriers, emerged from interviews with the GPs. Despite the strong belief in their role in managing chronic diseases, barriers such as costs of retinal cameras, time constraints, lack of skills to make DR diagnosis, and unawareness of Medicare incentives for non-mydriatic retinal photography made it difficult to conduct DR screening in general practice. However, several enabling strategies to deliver DR screening within primary care include increasing GPs' access to continuing professional development, subsidising the cost of retinal cameras, and the need for a champion ace to take the responsibility of retinal photography.ConclusionThis study identified essential areas at the system level that require addressing to promote the broader implementation of DR screening, in particular, a nationwide awareness campaign to maximise the use of MBS items, improve GPs' competency, and subsidise costs of the retinal cameras for small and rural general practices.
| S-EPMC8630186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleLung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers.MethodsWe conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics.ResultsThe 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital-based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening.ConclusionsProviders endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.
| S-EPMC5822418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeGlobally, lung cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Problematically, there is a wide variation in the management and survival for people with lung cancer and there is limited understanding of the reasons for these variations. To date, the views of health professionals across relevant disciplines who deliver such care are largely absent. The present study describes Australian health professionals' views about barriers to lung cancer care to help build a research and action agenda for improving lung cancer outcomes.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a multidisciplinary group of 31 Australian health professionals working in lung cancer care for an average of 16 years (range 1-35 yrs.; SD = 10.2) seeing a mean of 116 patients annually.ResultsThree superordinate themes were identified: illness representations, cultural influences, and health system context. Illness representations included three themes: symptoms attributed as smoking-related but not cancer, health-related stigma, and therapeutic nihilism. Cultural influence themes included Indigenous health care preferences, language and communication, and sociodemographic factors. Health system context included lack of regional services and distance to treatment, poor care coordination, lack of effective screening methods, and health professional behaviours.ConclusionsFractured and locally isolated approaches routinely confound responses to the social, cultural and health system complexities that surround a diagnosis of lung cancer and subsequent treatment. Improving outcomes for this disadvantaged patient group will require government, health agencies, and the community to take an aggressive, integrated approach balancing health policy, treatment priorities, and societal values.
| S-EPMC5196009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether an intervention addressing both logistical and knowledge barriers to early screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) increases evidence-based screening during 18-month well-child visits and primary care providers' (PCPs') perceived self-efficacy in caring for children with ASD.MethodsForty-six PCPs from 10 diverse practices across four counties in Washington State participated. PCPs attended a 2-hour training workshop on early recognition and care for toddlers with ASD and use of a REDCap-based version of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers-Revised with Follow-up (webM-CHAT-R/F) that provided automated presentation and scoring of follow-up questions. Data were collected at baseline and 6 months following each county's training window. PCPs' screening methods and rates and perceived self-efficacy regarding ASD care were measured by self-report and webM-CHAT-R/F use was measured via REDCap records.ResultsAt follow-up, 8 of the 10 practices were using the webM-CHAT-R/F routinely at 18-month visits. The proportion of PCPs reporting routine M-CHAT screening increased from 82% at baseline to 98% at follow-up (16% increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3%-28%; McNemar exact P = .02). The proportion using the M-CHAT-R/F follow-up interview questions increased from 33% to 82% (49% increase, 95% CI 30%-68%, exact McNemar test, P < .001). Significant increases in self-efficacy were found for all seven areas assessed (Ps ≤ .008).ConclusionsThis brief intervention increased PCPs' self-reported valid use of the M-CHAT-R/F at 18 months and their self-efficacy regarding ASD care. Combining educational information with a web-based ASD screen incorporating the M-CHAT-R/F follow-up questions may increase universal ASD screening with improved fidelity.
| S-EPMC8536796 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients.We conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55-80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range?=?0-9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months.Among 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean?=?2.6 vs. 5.5, difference?=?2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p?<?0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT.In primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous.This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).
| S-EPMC5765651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental disorder affecting up to 5% of children and adults and is underdiagnosed in many European countries. The process of access to care for this disorder is complex and variable across countries. In general, those affected, or their caregiver, will seek help through their primary care practitioners who are then often responsible for referral to other professionals for diagnosis and provision of treatment. Previous studies have highlighted that many barriers to recognition exist in primary care settings (such as misconceptions, lack of education or lack of resources), preventing access to care for this population and potentially affecting diagnosis rate. This systematic review aims to establish the barriers and facilitators with regard to attitudes, beliefs and experiences of ADHD within primary care. Electronic searches of multiple databases identified 3898 articles of which 48 met our inclusion criteria-primary care professionals from any country, understanding, knowledge, awareness, attitude and recognition of ADHD. Four main themes were identified: (1) need for education, (2) misconceptions and stigma, (3) constraints with recognition, management and treatment, and (4) multidisciplinary approach. The findings suggest many interacting factors are at play in the recognition of ADHD by primary care practitioners with a strong recurring theme of a significant need for better education on ADHD. Implications for research and practice are discussed, suggesting that educational interventions for primary care practitioners could improve the recognition of ADHD in this setting.
| S-EPMC6675769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInternational guidelines on cancer treatment recommend screening for early detection and treatment of distress. However, screening rates are insufficient. In the present study, a survey was developed to assess perceived systemic barriers to distress screening.MethodsA three-step approach was used for the study. Based on qualitative content analysis of interviews and an expert panel, an initial survey with 53 questions on barriers to screening was designed. It was completed by 98 nurses in a large comprehensive cancer center in Switzerland. From this, a short version of the survey with 24 questions was derived using exploratory principal component analysis. This survey was completed by 150 nurses in four cancer centers in Switzerland. A confirmatory factor analysis was then performed on the shortened version, yielding a final set of 14 questions.ResultsThe initial set of 53 questions was reduced to a set of 14 validated questions retaining 53% of the original variance. These 14 questions allow for an assessment within 2-3 min that identifies relevant barriers to distress screening from the perspective of those responsible for implementation of distress screening. Across several hospitals in Switzerland, the timing of the first distress screening, lack of capacity, patient and staff overload, and refusal of distressed patients to be referred to support services emerged as major problems.ConclusionThe validated 14 questions on barriers to screening cancer patients for distress enable clinicians and hospital administrators to quickly identify relevant issues and take action to improve screening programs.
| S-EPMC10501250 | biostudies-literature
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