Mapping the spectrum of psychological and behavioural responses to low-dose CT lung cancer screening offered within a Lung Health Check

BACKGROUND: Research on the psychological impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening has typically been narrow in scope and restricted to the trial setting. OBJECTIVE: To explore the range of psychological and behavioural responses to LDCT screening offered as part of a Lung Heath Check (LHC), including lung cancer risk assessment, spirometry testing, a carbon monoxide reading and smoking cessation advice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 28 current and former smokers (aged 60-75), who had undergone LDCT screening as part of a LHC appointment and mostly received an incidental or indeterminate result (n = 23). Framework analysis was used to map the spectrum of responses participants had across the LHC appointment and screening pathway, to their LDCT results and to surveillance. RESULTS: Interviewees reported a diverse range of both positive and negative psychological responses, beginning at invitation and spanning the entire LHC appointment (including spirometry) and LDCT screening pathway. Similarly, positive behavioural responses extended beyond smoking cessation to include anticipated implications for other cancer prevention and early detection behaviours, such as symptom presentation. Individual differences in responses appeared to be influenced by smoking status and LDCT result, as well as modifiable factors including perceived risk and health status, social support, competing priorities, fatalism and perceived stigma. CONCLUSIONS: The diverse ways in which participants responded to screening, both psychologically and behaviourally, should direct a broader research agenda to ensure all stages of screening delivery and communication are designed to promote well-being, motivate positive behaviour change and maximize patient benefit

Psychological Targets for Lung Cancer Screening Uptake: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study

Introduction: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening by high-risk groups compromises its effectiveness and equity as a population-level early detection strategy. Numerous psychological factors are implicated qualitatively or retrospectively, but prospective data are needed to validate their associations with uptake behavior and specify psychological targets for intervention. / Methods: This is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluating psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake. Ever-smokers (aged 55–77 y) were invited to a lung health check, at which low-dose computed tomography screening was offered through the SUMMIT Study—a multicenter screening implementation trial. One week after their screening invitation, 44,000 invitees were mailed the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening. Regression analyses evaluated the constructs’ associations with uptake (telephoning for an appointment) and sociodemographic characteristics. / Results: Higher odds of uptake were associated with both positive and negative perceptions. Positive perceptions included lung cancer controllability, benefits of early diagnosis, improved survival when lung cancer is detected early, willingness to be treated, and believing smoking cessation is effective in reducing risk. Negative perceptions included a higher lung cancer risk perception, negative beliefs about the consequences of lung cancer, perceiving lung cancer as stigmatized, and a negative emotional response. Although current smokers held the highest risk perceptions, they also reported negative perceptions that could undermine how they behave in response to their risk. / Conclusions: Interventions to improve uptake should focus on changing perceptions that affect how an individual reacts when they believe their risk of lung cancer is high

Targeted encouragement of GP consultations for possible cancer symptoms: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: For some common cancers, survival is lower in the UK than in comparable high-income countries. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of a targeted postal intervention (to promote awareness of cancer symptoms and earlier help seeking) on patient consultation rates. DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-arm randomised controlled trial was carried out on patients aged 50-84 years registered at 23 general practices in rural and urban areas of Greater London, Greater Manchester, and the North East of England. METHOD: Patients who had not had a consultation at their general practice in the previous 12 months and had at least two other risk factors for late presentation with cancer were randomised to intervention and control arms. The intervention consisted of a posted letter and leaflet. Primary outcome was the number of consultations at the practice with patients randomised to each arm in the 6 months subsequent to posting the intervention. All patients with outcome data were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1513 patients were individually randomised to the intervention (n = 783) and control (n = 730) arms between Nov 2016 - May 2017; outcome data were available for 749 and 705 patients, respectively, with a statistically significantly higher rate of consultation in the intervention arm compared with the control arm: 436 versus 335 consultations (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.11 to 1.77, P = 0.004). There was, however, no difference in the numbers of patients consulting. CONCLUSION: Targeted interventions of this nature can change behaviour; there is a need to develop interventions that can be more effective at engaging patients with primary care. This study demonstrates that targeted interventions promoting both awareness of possible cancer symptoms and earlier health seeking, can change behaviour. There is a need to develop and test interventions that can be more effective at engaging the most at-risk patients

Interest in lifestyle advice at lung cancer screening: Determinants and preferences

Background Lung cancer screening could be a ‘teachable moment’ for behaviour change. Little is known about how advice about smoking cessation, or other behavioural cancer risk factors, would be received in this setting. Methods Using a population-based survey of 459 English adults (current smokers and recent quitters aged 50–75) we assessed willingness to receive lifestyle advice (about smoking, diet, weight, physical activity, alcohol consumption) at lung screening. Additional items assessed whether advice should be provided following abnormal screening results, the potential impact of advice on screening uptake, and preferred timing of advice. Results Overall, 64% (n = 292) of participants were willing to receive lifestyle advice at lung screening. A greater proportion of participants were willing to receive advice in a scenario where results required further investigation (83%; p < 0.01). However, 14% indicated the provision of lifestyle advice would make them less willing to attend lung screening. Non-White ethnicity and greater cancer risk factor awareness were associated with willingness to receive advice (p < 0.05). Half of smokers (51%) were willing to receive cessation advice. There was also interest in advice about diet (47%), weight (43%), physical activity (32%), and alcohol consumption (17%) among people not meeting current recommendations for these behaviours. There was a preference for advice to be delivered at the screening appointment (38%, n = 108) over other time-points. Conclusions Lung screening may offer an opportunity to provide advice about behavioural cancer risk factors. Future work should consider how to deliver effective interventions in this setting to support behaviour change, without affecting screening uptake

Interest in lifestyle advice at lung cancer screening: Determinants and preferences

Background Lung cancer screening could be a ‘teachable moment’ for behaviour change. Little is known about how advice about smoking cessation, or other behavioural cancer risk factors, would be received in this setting. Methods Using a population-based survey of 459 English adults (current smokers and recent quitters aged 50–75) we assessed willingness to receive lifestyle advice (about smoking, diet, weight, physical activity, alcohol consumption) at lung screening. Additional items assessed whether advice should be provided following abnormal screening results, the potential impact of advice on screening uptake, and preferred timing of advice. Results Overall, 64% (n = 292) of participants were willing to receive lifestyle advice at lung screening. A greater proportion of participants were willing to receive advice in a scenario where results required further investigation (83%; p < 0.01). However, 14% indicated the provision of lifestyle advice would make them less willing to attend lung screening. Non-White ethnicity and greater cancer risk factor awareness were associated with willingness to receive advice (p < 0.05). Half of smokers (51%) were willing to receive cessation advice. There was also interest in advice about diet (47%), weight (43%), physical activity (32%), and alcohol consumption (17%) among people not meeting current recommendations for these behaviours. There was a preference for advice to be delivered at the screening appointment (38%, n = 108) over other time-points. Conclusions Lung screening may offer an opportunity to provide advice about behavioural cancer risk factors. Future work should consider how to deliver effective interventions in this setting to support behaviour change, without affecting screening uptake

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity. Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening. Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group’s leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport’s annual vehicle test (“M.O.T. For Your Lungs”). Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82–1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82–1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56–0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01). Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741)

Targeted encouragement of GP consultations for possible cancer symptoms: a randomised controlled trial

This is the final version. Available on open access from the Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this recordBackground For some common cancers, survival is lower in the UK than in comparable high-income countries. Aim To assess the effectiveness of a targeted postal intervention (to promote awareness of cancer symptoms and earlier help seeking) on patient consultation rates. Design and setting A two-arm randomised controlled trial was carried out on patients aged 50-84 years registered at 23 general practices in rural and urban areas of Greater London, Greater Manchester, and the North East of England. Method Patients who had not had a consultation at their general practice in the previous 12 months and had at least two other risk factors for late presentation with cancer were randomised to intervention and control arms. The intervention consisted of a posted letter and leaflet. Primary outcome was the number of consultations at the practice with patients randomised to each arm in the 6 months subsequent to posting the intervention. All patients with outcome data were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Results In total, 1513 patients were individually randomised to the intervention (n = 783) and control (n = 730) arms between Nov 2016 — May 2017; outcome data were available for 749 and 705 patients, respectively, with a statistically significantly higher rate of consultation in the intervention arm compared with the control arm: 436 versus 335 consultations (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.11 to 1.77, P = 0.004). There was, however, no difference in the numbers of patients consulting. Conclusion Targeted interventions of this nature can change behaviour; there is a need to develop interventions that can be more effective at engaging patients with primary care. This study demonstrates that targeted interventions promoting both awareness of possible cancer symptoms and earlier health seeking, can change behaviour. There is a need to develop and test interventions that can be more effective at engaging the most at-risk patients.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Information Film on Informed Decision-making: A Randomized Trial.

Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101)