A Qualitative Study Exploring Why Individuals Opt Out of Lung Cancer Screening

Background. Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography is relatively new for long-term smokers in the USA supported by a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation. As screening programs are more widely implemented nationally and providers engage patients about lung cancer screening, it is critical to understand behaviour among high-risk smokers who opt out to improve shared decision-making processes for lung cancer screening. Objective. The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons for screening-eligible patients’ decisions to opt out of screening after receiving a provider recommendation. Methods. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed with 18 participants who met lung cancer screening criteria for age, smoking and pack-year history in Washington State from November 2015 to January 2016. Two researchers with cancer screening and qualitative methodology expertise conducted data analysis using thematic content analytic procedures from audio-recorded interviews. Results. Five primary themes emerged for reasons of opting out of lung cancer screening: (i) Knowledge Avoidance; (ii) Perceived Low Value; (iii) False-Positive Worry; (iv) Practical Barriers; and (v) Patient Misunderstanding. Conclusion. The participants in our study provided insight into why some patients make the decision to opt out of low-dose computed tomography screening, which provides knowledge that can inform intervention development to enhance shared decision-making processes between long-term smokers and their providers and decrease decisional conflict about screening

Prevalence and Correlates of Invitation to Participate in Clinical Trials among US Adults

Clinical trials are essential to modern medicine, but several barriers, including poor communication, hamper their successful completion. We examined the prevalence and correlates of invitation to participate in clinical trials among a nationally-representative sample of US adults using survey responses from the 2020 HINTS (Cycle 5). Analyses were conducted in 2021. Overall, 9% of respondents reported being invited to a clinical trial, a prevalence that is nearly half of previously reported rates in convenience samples recruited from health care settings. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Black respondents reported the higher prevalence of invitation (16.0%) whereas Asian respondents reported the lowest (2%). Prevalence of clinical trial invitation was significantly higher for the 65–74 age and the 75 + age groups. Prevalence of invitation was significantly higher among college graduates (12.0%) and lower for those residing in rural areas/small towns compared to metropolitan areas. Invitation was significantly higher among cancer patients/survivors (16.0%), patients with diabetes (11.7%) and with chronic lung disease (16.7%). Provider and patient factors there were associated with higher invitation rates included using web devices to communicate with providers or to aid health-related discussions, having a specific medical provider, and looking for health information online. This study establishes a population-based prevalence of clinical trial communication that can be monitored as health care providers/organizations increase their focus on enrollment activities. Targeted interventions to improve communication about clinical trials are needed to address socio-demographic disparities and are particularly important for Asian patients, patients with lower income, and those living in rural areas

Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers

Abstract Background Making evidence-based decisions often requires comparison of two or more options. Research-based evidence may exist which quantifies how likely the outcomes are for each option. Understanding these numeric estimates improves patients’ risk perception and leads to better informed decision making. This paper summarises current “best practices” in communication of evidence-based numeric outcomes for developers of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other health communication tools. Method An expert consensus group of fourteen researchers from North America, Europe, and Australasia identified eleven main issues in risk communication. Two experts for each issue wrote a “state of the art” summary of best evidence, drawing on the PtDA, health, psychological, and broader scientific literature. In addition, commonly used terms were defined and a set of guiding principles and key messages derived from the results. Results The eleven key components of risk communication were: 1) Presenting the chance an event will occur; 2) Presenting changes in numeric outcomes; 3) Outcome estimates for test and screening decisions; 4) Numeric estimates in context and with evaluative labels; 5) Conveying uncertainty; 6) Visual formats; 7) Tailoring estimates; 8) Formats for understanding outcomes over time; 9) Narrative methods for conveying the chance of an event; 10) Important skills for understanding numerical estimates; and 11) Interactive web-based formats. Guiding principles from the evidence summaries advise that risk communication formats should reflect the task required of the user, should always define a relevant reference class (i.e., denominator) over time, should aim to use a consistent format throughout documents, should avoid “1 in x” formats and variable denominators, consider the magnitude of numbers used and the possibility of format bias, and should take into account the numeracy and graph literacy of the audience. Conclusion A substantial and rapidly expanding evidence base exists for risk communication. Developers of tools to facilitate evidence-based decision making should apply these principles to improve the quality of risk communication in practice.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116070/1/12911_2013_Article_751.pd

Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book

Successful cancer prevention strategies must be tailored to support usability. In this article, we will focus on cancer prevention strategies in populations that differ by race and ethnicity, place and location, sexual orientation and gender identity, and age by providing examples of effective approaches. An individual may belong to none of these categories, to all of these categories, or to some. This intersectionality of belonging characterizes individuals and shapes their experiences. Even within a category, broad diversity exists. Effective cancer prevention strategies comprehensively engage the community at multiple levels of influence and may effectively include lay health workers and faith-based cancer education interventions. Health system efforts that integrate cancer health with other health promotion activities show promise. At the individual physician level, culturally literate approaches have demonstrated success. For example, when discussing cancer screening tests with older adults, clinicians should indicate whether any data suggest that the screening test improves quality or quantity of life and the lag time to benefit from the screening test. This will allow older adults to make an informed cancer screening decision based on a realistic understanding of the potential benefits and risks and their values and preferences. Addressing individual and health system bias remains a challenge. Quality improvement strategies can address gaps in quality of care with respect to timeliness of care, coordination of care, and patient experience. The time is ripe for research on effective and interdisciplinary prevention strategies that harness expertise from preventive medicine, behavioral medicine, implementation science, e-health, telemedicine, and other diverse fields of health promotion.R01 CA181357/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United StatesR25 CA221765/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United StatesP20 GM121327/GM/NIGMS NIH HHS/United StatesR21 CA212386/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United StatesU48DP005014/ACL/ACL HHS/United StatesP30 CA177558/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United StatesU48 DP005014/DP/NCCDPHP CDC HHS/United States2020-05-17T00:00:00Z31099623PMC65562097696vault:3238