https://openworks.mdanderson.org/sumexp22/1065/thumbnail.jp

Niu, Jiangong, PhD

Resong, Paul J

Toumazis, Iakovos

English

OpenWorks @ MD Anderson

Nearly half of health care providers are interested in Personalized Lung Cancer Screening.If designed to be time-efficient, interest may reach 70-90%IntroductionLung cancer screening (LCS) using Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) has been proven to reduce mortality. Novel personalized screening approaches for LCS, like use of a risk calculator, are being developed that:• increase screening effectiveness• reduce harms• increase screening efficiencyImplementation of personalized lung cancer screening is challenging.Observation of current practices and assessing the needs of primary care providers is paramount to the implementation of personalized screening.MethodsA survey of Texas-based primary care physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners was collected to analyze• various elements of current use• acceptability of personalized (risk-based) LCS91 responses were categorized based on demographic information and analyzed for response trends using a ten-times bootstrapped logistic regression.Noteworthy Observations1. Interest • Young providers were more open to personalized LCS. This indicates that acceptance of the new system will continue to grow • The high amount of “not sure” providers provides grey area –but this may instead be an opportunity to change minds!2. Provider Concerns • Providers mostly cite concerns related to time-efficiency. Other concerns demonstrate less consensus3. Assessment of Current Practices• Low levels of consistent assessment of lung cancer screening criteria match the low rates of screening that others have observedPersonalized Lung Cancer Screening – Acceptability among Primary Care ProvidersPaul J Resong, MS2, Jiangong Niu, PhD, Iakovos Toumazis, PhDDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterResults from Logistic Regression0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Less than4040 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 andabovePercent of RespondentsAgeInterest by Provider AgeInterestedNot sureNot InterestedInterest in personalized lung cancer screening among all healthcare providers. Personalized lung cancer screening is generally well accepted. There is not much opposition to the new approach. There were many “not sure” responses, indicating that healthcare providers would like additional information before coming to a decision about interest for implementation. The majority of “not sure” responses cited time as a barrier to personalized LCS. ResultsPrimary Concerns and Perceived Barriers to Personalized LCS62% of those who responded “not sure” for their interest in personalized LCS cited time consuming as a concern. Additionally, we see other concerns, including, most notably, beliefs of less patient adherence with the personalized approach. Interest in personalized lung cancer screening among all healthcare providers by Age26%11%47%59%26%30%0% 20% 40% 60% 80%PAs andNPsPhysiciansPercent of RespondentsAssessment of Lung Cancer Screening by ProfessionAlwaysSometimesNeverCurrent Practice – Assessment of LCS by Profession (Physicians vs PAs + NPs)Current Practice – Assessment of LCS in and outside a Residency Training CenterConclusion1. Approximately 50% of Texas-based primary care providers are interested in personalized LCS2. Timeliness was the primary concern among all providers3. The youngest cohort (aged under 40) was the most interested in personalized LCS4. If the timeliness of the personalized approach is favorable in the future, interest may reach 70-90%AcknowledgementsThis research was supported in part, by a cancer prevention fellowship supportedby the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP170259 ), and the National Institutes of Health through MD Anderson's Cancer Center Support Grant.Group Comparison: Interest Odds Ratio P ValueAge: 40-49 Vs. <40 0.259 <.0001Age: 50-59 Vs. <40 0.594 0.035Age: 60-69 Vs. <40 0.081 <.0001Age: 70+ Vs. <40 1.152 0.7343Physicians w/ LCS Eligible Volume: 10-49 Vs. <10 5.699 <.0001Residency Training Site Vs. Non-residency Training Site 0.215 <.0001Interest in Personalized Approach - Results from Logistic Regression AnalysisAge: Comparing each age group with <40 group.Physician LCS Eligible Volume: the physician-reported volume of their patients that are eligible for LCS.Residency Training site: whether the provider works in a training site.Current Practice of LCS19% 14%4%29%26%8%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Interested Not Sure Not InterestedPercent of RespondentsInterest in Personalized Lung Cancer ScreeningThose Who Believe there is Time BarrierTime Not a Barrier Time Consuming14%26%8%18%18%62%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%OtherLess Patient AdherenceLow Patient TrustCommunication DifficultiesLow AccuracyTime ConsumingPercent of RespondentsPrimary Concerns among Care Providers for Personalized Screening22.47%13.46%35.14%49.44%50.00%48.65%28.09%36.54%16.22%0% 20% 40% 60%TotalNotTrainingSiteResidencyTrainingSitePercent of RespondentsAssessment of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility - by Residency Training SettingAlwaysSometimesNever

Personalized Lung Cancer Screening – Acceptability among Primary Care Providers

https://openworks.mdanderson.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=sumexp22

Personalized Lung Cancer Screening – Acceptability among Primary Care Providers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenWorks @ MD Anderson