What is the effect of a decision aid on knowledge, values and preferences for lung cancer screening? An online pre-post study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To examine if a decision aid improves knowledge of lung cancer screening benefits and harms and which benefits and harms are most valued.Design
Pre-post study.Setting
Online.Participants
219 current or former (quit within the previous 15 years) smokers ages 55-80 with at least 30 pack-years of smoking.Intervention
Lung cancer screening video decision aid.Main measures
Screening 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).Results
Mean 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
SUBMITTER: Clark SD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273450 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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: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:ImportanceDecision support tools can assist people to apply population-based evidence on benefits and harms to individual health decisions. A key question is whether "personalising" choice within decisions aids leads to better decision quality.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of personalising the content of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening using the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test.DesignRandomized controlled trial.SettingAustralia.Participants1,970 men aged 40-69 years were approached to participate in the trial.Intervention1,447 men were randomly allocated to either a standard decision aid with a fixed set of five attributes or a personalised decision aid with choice over the inclusion of up to 10 attributes.Outcome measuresTo determine whether there was a difference between the two groups in terms of: 1) the emergent opinion (generated by the decision aid) to have a PSA test or not; 2) self-rated decision quality after completing the online decision aid; 3) their intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months. We also wanted to determine whether men in the personalised choice group made use of the extra decision attributes.Results5% of men in the fixed attribute group scored 'Have a PSA test' as the opinion generated by the aid, as compared to 62% of men in the personalised choice group (χ2 = 569.38, 2df, p< 0001). Those men who used the personalised decision aid had slightly higher decision quality (t = 2.157, df = 1444, p = 0.031). The men in the personalised choice group made extensive use of the additional decision attributes. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of their stated intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months.ConclusionsTogether, these findings suggest that personalised decision support systems could be an important development in shared decision-making and patient-centered care.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12612000723886.
| S-EPMC4822955 | 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
Project description:Junior doctors are too often frustrated by not being able to quickly find information for how to make referrals, book investigations and contact other professionals at hospital. To make matters worse, much of the knowledge gained by doctors throughout the year is lost during the August rotation. There is an unmet need for retaining such knowledge, in order to facilitate a smoother and safer handover. We set up the "Doctors Directory" at our trust; a website run by junior doctors, providing specific, up-to-date information relevant to other junior doctors within the trust. Whilst providing day-to-day information, it also contains a "survival guide" for each hospital firm. We surveyed junior doctors before and after the implementation of this site. 81% of FY1s surveyed have used the site. Of the doctors that had used the site, 94% found it helpful with a mean self reported time saving of 39 minutes a day. Whilst still in its infancy, the site now has mobile access, and has an average of 60 hits a day. Quality improvement projects such as this are readily scalable to other hospitals and have enabled junior doctors to waste less time finding how to do jobs and more time actually getting them done.
| S-EPMC4663812 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background. Recent policy changes require discussing the potential benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. This study explored how current and former smokers value potential benefits and harms after watching a patient decision aid, and their screening intentions. Methods. Current or former smokers (quit within 15 years) with no history of lung cancer watched the decision aid and responded to items assessing the value of potential benefits and harms in their decision making, and their screening intentions. Results. After viewing the decision aid, participants (n = 30; mean age 61.5 years, mean 30.4 pack-year history) were well-informed (mean 80.5% correct responses) and rated anticipated regret and finding cancer early as highly important in their decision (medians >9 out of 10), along with moderate but variable concerns about false positives, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure (medians 7.0, 6.0, and 5.0, respectively). Most participants (90.0% to 96.7%) felt clear about how they personally valued the potential benefits and harms and prepared for decision making (mean 86.7 out of 100, SD = 21.3). After viewing the decision aid, most participants (90%) intended to discuss screening with their doctor. Limitations. The study is limited to current and former smokers enrolled in a tobacco treatment program, and it may not generalize to other patient populations. Conclusions. The majority of current and former smokers were strongly concerned about anticipated regret and finding cancer early, while concerns about radiation exposure, false positives, and overdiagnosis were variable. After viewing the decision aid, current and former smokers reported strong preparedness and intentions to talk with their doctor about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.
| S-EPMC6157430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making.ObjectiveTo examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report.ResultsOf 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.
| S-EPMC7042872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveHealth systems could adopt population-level approaches to screening by identifying potential screening candidates from the electronic health record and reaching out to them via the patient portal. However, whether patients would read or act on sent information is unknown. We examined the feasibility of this digital health outreach strategy.MethodsWe conducted a single-arm pragmatic trial in a large academic health system. An electronic health record algorithm identified primary care patients who were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS). Identified patients were sent a patient portal invitation to visit a LCS interactive Web site which assessed screening eligibility and included a decision aid. The primary outcome was screening completion. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who read the invitation, visited the interactive Web site, and completed the interactive Web site.ResultsWe sent portal invitations to 1,000 patients. Almost all patients (86%, 862/1,000) read the invitation, 404 (40%) patients visited the interactive Web site, and 349 patients (35%) completed it. Of the 99 patients who were confirmed screening eligible by the Web site, 81 made a screening decision (30% wanted screening, 44% unsure, 26% declined screening), and 22 patients had a chest computed tomography completed.ConclusionThe digital outreach strategy reached the majority of patient portal users. While the study focused on LCS, this digital outreach approach could be generalized to other health needs. Given the broad reach and potential low cost of this digital strategy, future research should investigate best practices for implementing the system.
| S-EPMC8438623 | biostudies-literature