Dataset Information

Primary care and pulmonary physicians' knowledge and practice concerning screening for lung cancer in Lebanon, a middle-income country.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was shown to reduce lung cancer incidence and overall mortality, and it has been recently included in international guidelines. Despite the rising burden of lung cancer in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Lebanon, little is known about what primary care physicians or pulmonologists know and think about LDCT as a screening procedure for lung cancer, and if they recommend it.

Objectives

Evaluate the knowledge about LDCT and implementation of international guidelines for lung cancer screening among Lebanese primary care physicians (PCPs) and pulmonary specialists.

Methodology

PCPs and PUs based in Lebanon were surveyed concerning knowledge and practices related to lung cancer screening by self-administered paper questionnaires.

Results

73.8% of PCPs and 60.7% of pulmonary specialists recognized LDCT as an effective tool for lung cancer screening, with 63.6% of PCPs and 71% of pulmonary specialists having used it for screening. However, only 23.4% of PCPs and 14.5% of pulmonary specialists recognized the eligibility criteria for screening. Chest X-ray was recognized as ineffective by only 55.8% of PCPs and 40.7% of pulmonary specialists; indeed, 30.2% of PCPs and 46% of pulmonary specialists continue using it for screening. The majority have initiated a discussion about the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening.

Conclusion

PCPs and pulmonary specialists are initiating discussions and ordering LDCT for lung cancer screening. However, a significant proportion of both specialties are still using a non-recommended screening tool (chest x-ray); only few PCPs and pulmonary specialists recognized the population at risk for which screening is recommended. Targeted provider education is needed to close the knowledge gap and promote proper implementation of guidelines for lung cancer screening.

SUBMITTER: Bou Akl I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8026943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMost of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects.ObjectiveTo assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older.ExposuresThree screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.ResultsAmong 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%.Conclusions and relevanceThis study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundAs the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to evolve, physicians must be equipped with adequate knowledge, skills on the prevention measures, and confidence in diagnosing and treating COVID-19 patients. Therefore, it is of great interest to assess the knowledge and practices of Physicians to identify existing gaps and improve occupational safety and viral surveillance.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Lebanon between 28th March and 11th April 2020. Data was collected through an online survey that included information on socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge, practice, physicians fear towards COVID-19 as well as their perceptions regarding actions/policies implemented by the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) and their health care facilities. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were carried out to identify the factors associated with good knowledge of COVID-19 and good practice toward its prevention. Adjusted odds ratio and their 95% confidence intervals were reported.ResultsOur survey revealed that the majority of Lebanese physicians had good knowledge about the disease (89.5%) while approximately half of the respondents adopted good preventive practices (49.7%). The odds of having good knowledge was 2.16 times higher among physicians aged 40 and above (adjusted OR = 2.16 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.08 to 4.34) compared to their counterparts aged less than 40 years old. Our results also showed that the odds of good practice was 2 times higher among frontline compared to the second line workers (adjusted OR = 2.01 with 95% CI of 1.21 to 3.34). Physicians with an experience of 10 years and above were 3.35 times more likely to have good practice compared to their counterparts (adjusted OR = 3.35 with 95% CI of 1.60 to 7.02). Finally, participants with good knowledge of COVID-19 were 2.04 times more likely to have a good practice (OR = 2.04 with 95% CI of 1.01 to 4.12).ConclusionLebanese physicians revealed a good level of knowledge; however, they had limited comprehension of the precautionary measures that protect them from this virus. Our findings have important implications for the development of strategies suitable for improving the level of practice among physicians and enhance prevention programs.

Project description:BackgroundStudies around the world have shown that interactions between pharmaceutical companies, pharmacists and physicians have a great influence on prescribing and drug dispensing practices. In middle-income countries, the nature and extent of these interactions have not been well researched. Our objectives were to qualitatively explore the nature of the interactions between pharmaceutical companies, physicians and pharmacists, their impact on drug prescription and dispensing practices in Lebanon.Methods and findingsWe used grounded theory approach as well as the known sponsor, purposive, and snowballing sampling strategies to identify interviewees from the three respective groups: physicians, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical representatives. We conducted semi-structured and analyzed transcripts thematically. This study encompassed 6 pharmaceutical representatives, 13 physicians and 13 pharmacists. The following themes emerged: purpose and driver for the interactions, nature of the interactions, incentives, impact on prescription practices, ethical considerations, and suggestions for managing the interactions. The main purposes for the interaction were educational, promotional, and monitoring prescription practices and dispensing, while the main drivers for these interactions were market potential and neighborhood socio-economic status. Physicians, pharmacists and pharmaceutical representatives who engage in these interactions benefit from a variety of incentives, some of which were characterized as unethical. It appears that pharmaceutical companies give prominence to selected physicians within their communities. Although members of the three interviewed groups refer to some of the interactions as being problematic, they described a culture of acceptance of gift giving. We developed a framework that depicts the prevailing politico-cultural environment, the interactions between the three professional groups, and their impact on drug prescription. Underreporting is the main limitation of this study.ConclusionInteractions between physicians, pharmacists and pharmaceutical representatives are frequent. Although these interactions can be beneficial, they still have a substantial effect on drug prescription and dispensing practices. Hence, the need for new policies that regulate these interactions and penalize any misconduct.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the implementation of codes and declarations of medical research ethics, unethical behavior is still reported among researchers. Most of the medical faculties have included topics related to medical research ethics and developed ethical committees; yet, in some cases, unethical behaviors are still observed, and many obstacles are still conferring to applying these guidelines. METHODS:This cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted by interviewing randomly selected 331 Lebanese physicians across Lebanon, to assess their awareness, knowledge and attitudes on practice regarding international and national research ethics guidelines (Lebanese decrees/Laws and CNRS chart of ethics) and scientific misconduct and misbehaviors. RESULTS:Our results revealed that although majority of participants declared familiar with ethical principles governing research that involves human subjects (79.5%), the overall mean score achieved on their knowledge questions was 46%. Only 27.4% are aware of the presence of the Lebanese National Consultative Committee on Ethics (LNCCE), with only half of them aware of its functions and only 25.7% know about the charter of ethics and guiding principles of scientific research in Lebanon. Significant higher levels of research ethics knowledge were recorded among Ph.D. degree-holding subjects, higher university positions as in professors, research ethics trainings-attendees, and physicians with prior research experience. A significant correlation was observed between knowledge of research ethics principles and positive attitudes toward research ethics principles. Noteworthy, we found that more than one third of participants have reported witnessing scientific misconduct and misbehaviors at some period of their careers. CONCLUSIONS:The presence of low mean awareness levels regarding research ethical principles among the study population of physicians and high levels of perception of scientific misconduct raises concern on the importance of implementing proper training for physicians on research ethics.