Improving Lung Cancer Screening Uptake.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wilson DO
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7560805 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7560797 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11220562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveGiven the higher rates of tobacco use along with increased mortality specific to lung cancer in rural settings, low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening could be particularly beneficial to such populations. However, limited radiology facilities and increased geographical distance, combined with lower income and education along with reduced patient engagement, present heightened barriers to screening initiation and adherence.MethodsIn collaboration with community leaders and stakeholders, we developed and implemented a community-based lung cancer screening program, including telephone-based navigation and tobacco cessation counseling support, serving 18 North Texas counties. Funding was available to support clinical services costs where needed. We collected data on LDCT referrals, orders, and completion.ResultsTo raise awareness for lung cancer screening, we leveraged our established collaborative network of more than 700 community partners. In the first year of operation, 107 medical providers referred 570 patients for lung cancer screening, of whom 488 (86%) were eligible for LDCT. The most common reasons for ineligibility were age (43%) and insufficient tobacco history (20%). Of 381 ordered LDCTs, 334 (88%) were completed. Among screened patients, 61% were current smokers and 36% had insurance coverage for the procedure. The program cost per patient was $430.DiscussionImplementation, uptake, and completion of LDCT-based lung cancer screening is feasible in rural settings. Community outreach, health promotion, and algorithm-based navigation may support such efforts. Given low lung cancer screening rates nationally and heightened lung cancer risk in rural populations, similar programs in other regions may be particularly impactful.
| S-EPMC8923939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based 'real-world' LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a 'lung health check'. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment.
| S-EPMC7509385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of psychological burden in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials may lack generalisability due to participation bias and control arms having elevated distress.MethodsCurrent and former smokers (n=787, aged 60-75) within a real-world screening demonstration pilot completed measures of lung cancer worry at three time points (T0: appointment, T1: next day, T2: 3 months) and anxiety and depression at two time points (T0 and T2). A 'screening unaware' community sample (n=383) with the same age and smoking characteristics completed these measures once (T0). Mean scores were compared by sample type and LDCT result.ResultsCompared with the community sample (T0), mean scores were higher in the screening sample, and statistically significantly increased in adjusted analyses, for lung cancer worry at T0 and T2 (mean (M): 9.32; 95% CI 8.96 to 9.69 vs M: 11.34; 11.09 to 11.59 and M: 11.88; 11.49 to 12.27), for anxiety at T0 and T2 (M: 3.32; 2.94 to 3.70 vs M: 4.73; 4.42 to 5.04 and M: 5.78; 5.33 to 6.23) and depression at T2 (M: 3.85; 3.44 to 4.27 vs M: 4.15; 3.76 to 4.55). Scores were highest for those with indeterminate (eg, T2 anxiety M: 6.93; 5.65 to 8.21) and incidental findings (primary care follow-up M: 5.34; 4.67 to 6.02) and those ineligible for screening (M: 6.51; 5.25 to 7.77). Being female, younger, not in paid employment, not married/cohabiting with a partner and lower education predicted poorer psychological outcomes at T0, but not T2 after adjusting for baseline scores. Mean scores remained within 'normal' clinical ranges.ConclusionPsychological distress was raised among high-risk individuals undergoing LDCT screening in a real-world setting, but overall differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful. It will be critical to monitor the psychological impact of services longitudinally across diverse settings, including subgroups vulnerable to clinically elevated distress.Trial registrationThe Lung Screen Uptake Trial was registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy (ISRCTN) (Number: ISRCTN21774741) on 23 September 2015 and the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02558101) on 22 September 2015.
| S-EPMC7677470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegular screening reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). The Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, has a regional screening programme offering faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) or colonoscopy. Participation in the screening programme has been low, particularly among complex patients. Patient navigation has strong evidence for increasing the CRC screening rate.Design and objectiveThis feasibility study tested patient navigation performed by medical assistants for complex patients at an academic primary care practice.Baseline measurementsA review of 328 patients' medical charts revealed that 51% were up-to-date with screening (16% within the programme), 24% were ineligible, 5% had a documented refusal and 20% were not up-to-date, of whom 58 (18%) were complex patients. INTERVENTION FEBRUARY 2023 TO MAY 2023: We tried to help complex patients participate in the screening programme using either in-person or telephone patient navigation. Each intervention was piloted by a physician-researcher and then performed by a medical assistant. Based on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance framework, we collected: Intervention participation and refusal, screening acceptance and completion and both patients and medical assistant acceptability (ie, qualitative interviews).ResultsOnly 4/58 (7%) patients participated in the in-person patient navigation test phase due to scheduling problems. All four patients accepted a prescription and 2/4 (50%) completed their test. We piloted a telephone intervention to bypass scheduling issues but all patients refused a telephone discussion with the medical assistant. At two months after the last intervention, the proportion of patients up-to-date increased from 51% to 56%.ConclusionOur overall approach was resource-intensive and had little impact on the overall participation rate. It was likely not sustainable. New approaches and reimbursement for a specific patient navigator role are needed to increase CRC screening of complex patients.
| S-EPMC11367402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper reports on an innovative whole-systems approach to improving uptake of breast screening in Tower Hamlets, a deprived borough in the East End of London with a large minority ethnic population. The approach, developed by the public health team at NHS Tower Hamlets, draws on analysis of needs and existing literature about effective interventions to promote breast screening. Social marketing research led to a campaign targeted at Bangladeshi women, together with a range of initiatives to promote breast screening through primary care services and community outreach through local well-known organisations. The breast screening service itself was upgraded and a new service specification is being introduced from April 2009.
| S-EPMC2790710 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends lung cancer screening via annual low dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high risk patients. Despite the strong evidence of a mortality benefit from several randomized clinical trials, rates of lung cancer screening remain low. We plan to assess how screening guidelines are implemented in a radiation oncology clinic for patients with head and neck cancer. Methods A single institution, retrospective chart review was used to identify patients with head and neck cancer seen in a radiation oncology clinic who were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening under the current USPSTF guidelines. Patients who were potentially screening-eligible were enrolled in a phone survey to assess their knowledge about lung cancer screening and willingness to be screened. Results Of the 184 patients with head and neck cancer seen in the clinic, 8 (4%) patients were eligible for lung cancer screening under the previous USPSTF recommendations, including 1 (0.5%) patient already being screened. One patient (0.5%) became eligible under the expanded guidelines. All 184 patients had smoking history documented. Of the 87 current or former smokers, there were 24 (28%) who did not have pack-years documented; of the 82 former smokers, there were 8 (10%) who did not have quit date documented. Among the 16 phone survey participants (response rate: 70%) only 6 (38%) were aware there is a way to screen for lung cancer and 12 (75%) patients would be interested in screening if they are found to be eligible. Conclusions These findings highlight a potential opportunity to increase rates of lung cancer screening among patients with head and neck cancer by both enhancing provider awareness as well as patient education at the community level.
| S-EPMC9840013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims?Uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in the English Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) Programme is low. The aim of this study was to test the impact of a nonparticipant reminder and theory-based leaflet to promote uptake among former nonresponders (previously did not confirm their appointment) and nonattenders (previously confirmed their appointment but did not attend). Patients and methods?Eligible adults were men and women in London who had not attended a BSS appointment within 12 months of their invitation. Individuals were randomized (1:1:1) to receive no reminder (control), a 12-month reminder plus standard information booklet (TMR-SIB), or a 12-month reminder plus bespoke theory-based leaflet (TMR-TBL) designed to address barriers to screening. The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of individuals screened within each group 12 weeks after the delivery of the reminder. Results?A total of 1383 men and women were randomized and analyzed as allocated (n?=?461 per trial arm). Uptake was 0.2?% (n?=?1), 10.4?% (n?=?48), and 15.2?% (n?=?70) in the control, TMR-SIB, and TMR-TBL groups, respectively. Individuals in the TMR-SIB and TMR-TBL groups were significantly more likely to attend screening than individuals in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 53.7, 95?% confidence interval [CI] 7.4?-?391.4, P?<?0.001 and OR 89.0, 95?%CIs 12.3?-?645.4, P?<?0.01, respectively). Individuals in the TMR-TBL group were also significantly more likely to attend screening than individuals in the TMR-SIB group (OR 1.7, 95?%CIs 1.1?-?2.5, P?=?0.01). Across all groups, former nonattenders were more likely to participate in screening than former nonresponders (uptake was 14.2?% and 8.0?%, respectively; OR 2.5, 95?%CIs 1.4?-?4.4, P?<?0.01). The adenoma detection rate among screened adults was 7.6?%, which is comparable to the rate in initial attenders. Conclusions?Reminders targeting former nonparticipants can improve uptake and are effective for both former nonresponders and nonattenders. Theory-based information designed to target barriers to screening added significantly to this strategy.
| S-EPMC6193284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere is no consensus in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines regarding transgender women despite their known prostate cancer risk.ObjectiveTo identify factors associated with recent (within the last 2 years) PSA screening in transgender women compared with cisgender men.Design, setting, and participantsThis case-control study used data from the 2018 and 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys to characterize rates of PSA screening for prostate cancer within the past 2 years and multivariable logistic regressions to characterize factors associated with recent screening among transgender women. The BRFSS program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually surveys over 400 000 US adults on behavioral risk factors, chronic illnesses, and use of preventive services. Respondents to the BRFSS who were cisgender men or transgender women 40 years or older and who had complete PSA testing responses and no prostate cancer history were included; 313 transgender women and 138 937 cisgender men met inclusion criteria. Matching was performed by age, race and ethnicity, educational level, employment, annual income, survey year, and cost barriers to care. Data were collected on November 2, 2022, and analyzed from November 2, 2022, to December 3, 2023.Main outcomes and measuresRates of and factors associated with recent PSA screening in transgender women.ResultsAmong the 1275 participants included in the matched cohort (255 transgender women and 1020 cisgender men; 570 [44.7%] aged 55-69 years), recent PSA screening rates among transgender women and cisgender men aged 55 to 69 were 22.2% (n = 26) and 36.3% (n = 165), respectively; among those 70 years and older, these rates were 41.8% (n = 26) and 40.2% (n = 98), respectively. In the matched cohort, transgender women had lower univariable odds of recent screening than cisgender men (odds ratio [OR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.92]; P = .02). In a hierarchical regression analysis adding time since the last primary care visit, effect size and significance were unchanged (OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.42-0.87]; P = .007). After adding whether a clinician recommended a PSA test, there was no statistically significant difference in odds of screening between transgender women and cisgender men (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.45-1.27]; P = .21). The results were further attenuated when clinician-led discussions of PSA screening advantages and disadvantages were added (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.47-1.31]; P = .32). In a multivariable logistic regression among transgender women, having a recommendation for PSA testing was the factor with the strongest association with recent screening (OR, 12.40 [95% CI, 4.47-37.80]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this case-control study of one of the largest cohorts of transgender women studied regarding PSA screening, the findings suggest that access to care or sociodemographic factors were not principal drivers of the screening differences between transgender women and cisgender men; rather, these data underscore the clinician's role in influencing PSA screening among transgender women.
| S-EPMC10867675 | biostudies-literature