Deferral and Resumption of Lung Cancer Screening After COVID-19 Surge: Patient Perspectives From Two Institutions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Byrne SC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7580522 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Deferral and Resumption of Lung Cancer Screening After COVID-19 Surge: Patient Perspectives From Two Institutions.
Byrne Suzanne C SC Jacobson Francine L FL Hammer Mark M MM Dyer Debra S DS
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR 20201022 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development.AimThis study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach.MethodsWe elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider-facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient-facing SDM tool.ResultsThe findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient-facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient-provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids.ConclusionThese findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions.Patient or public contributionPatients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.
| S-EPMC11239535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:National guidelines call for annual lung cancer screening for high-risk smokers using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The objective of our study was to characterize patient knowledge and attitudes about lung cancer screening, smoking cessation, and shared decision making by patient and health care provider.We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with patients with histories of heavy smoking who received care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC Clinic) and at a comprehensive cancer center-affiliated chest clinic (Chest Clinic) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The interviews, conducted from February through September 2014, focused on perceptions about health screening, knowledge and attitudes about LDCT screening, and preferences regarding decision aids. We used a systematic iterative analytic process to identify preliminary and emergent themes and to create a coding structure.We reached thematic saturation after 22 interviews (10 at the FQHC Clinic, 12 at the Chest Clinic). Most patients were unaware of LDCT screening for lung cancer but were receptive to the test. Some smokers said they would consider quitting smoking if their screening result were positive. Concerns regarding screening were cost, radiation exposure, and transportation issues. To support decision making, most patients said they preferred one-on-one discussions with a provider. They also valued decision support tools (print materials, videos), but raised concerns about readability and Internet access.Implementing lung cancer screening in sociodemographically diverse populations poses significant challenges. The value of tobacco cessation counseling cannot be overemphasized. Effective interventions for shared decision making to undergo lung cancer screening will need the active engagement of health care providers and will require the use of accessible decision aids designed for people with low health literacy.
| S-EPMC4993119 | biostudies-other
Project description:Researchers at the NCI have developed the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool (RNOT), an online tool that calculates risk of lung cancer diagnosis and death with and without lung cancer screening, and false-positive risk estimates. This tool has the potential to facilitate shared decision making for screening. The objective of this study was to examine how current heavy and former smokers understand and respond to personalized risk estimates from the RNOT. Individuals who were eligible for lung cancer screening and were visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to assess their experiences with and perceptions of the RNOT. Results were analyzed using template analysis. Participants found their risk of lung cancer death to be lower than anticipated and were confused by changes in risk for lung cancer diagnosis with and without screening. Most participants indicated that the RNOT would be helpful in making screening decisions, despite reporting that there was no maximum risk for a false positive that would lead them to forgo lung cancer screening. Participants provided actionable needs and recommendations to optimize this tool. Risk-based screening tools may enhance shared decision making. The RNOT is being updated to incorporate these findings.
| S-EPMC9190214 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening.Research questionHow do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress?Study design and methodsWe conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis.ResultsClinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress.InterpretationTension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.
| S-EPMC7478230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPeople with HIV are at higher risk of lung cancer; however, there is limited research on attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to lung cancer screening in people with HIV. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives on lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers.MethodsSurveys of people with HIV and HIV-care providers were complemented by qualitative focus groups and interviews designed to understand the determinants of lung cancer screening in people with HIV. Participants were recruited through an academic HIV clinic in Seattle, WA. Qualitative guides were developed by integrating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases checklist. Themes that emerged from thematic analyses of qualitative data were compared with surveys in joint displays. All study components were conducted between 2021 and 2022.ResultsSixty-four people with HIV completed surveys, and 43 participated in focus groups. Eleven providers completed surveys, and 10 were interviewed for the study. Themes from joint displays show overall enthusiasm for lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers, particularly with a tailored and evidence-based approach. Facilitators in this population may include longstanding engagement with providers and health systems and an emphasis on survivorship through preventive healthcare interventions. People with HIV may also face barriers acknowledged by providers, including a high level of medical comorbidities and competing issues such as substance abuse, mental health concerns, and economic instability.ConclusionsThis study reveals that people with HIV and their providers have overall enthusiasm toward screening. However, tailored interventions may be needed to overcome specific barriers, including complex decision making in the setting of medical comorbidity and patient competing issues.
| S-EPMC10524954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few studies exist showing that involvement in lung cancer screening (LCS) leads to a change in rates of cigarette smoking. We investigated LCS longitudinally to determine whether teachable moments for smoking cessation occur downstream from the initial provider-patient LCS shared decision-making discussion and self-reported effects on smoking behaviors. We performed up to two successive semi-structured interviews to assess the experiences of 39 individuals who formerly or currently smoked cigarettes who underwent LCS decision-making discussions performed during routine care from three established US medical center LCS programs. The majority of those who remembered hearing about the importance of smoking cessation after LCS-related encounters did not report communication about smoking influencing their motivation to quit or abstain from smoking, including patients who were found to have pulmonary nodules. Patients experienced little distress related to LCS discussions. Patients reported that there were other, more significant, reasons for quitting or abstinence. They recommended clinicians continue to ask about smoking at every clinical encounter, provide information comparing the benefits of LCS with those of quitting smoking, and have clinicians help them identify triggers or other motivators for improving smoking behaviors. Our findings suggest that there may be other teachable moment opportunities outside of LCS processes that could be utilized to motivate smoking reduction or cessation, or LCS processes could be improved to integrate cessation resources.
| S-EPMC9551209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE:To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN:Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS:We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH:Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS:Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.
| S-EPMC6025674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Before the predicted March 2020 surge of COVID-19, US healthcare organizations were charged with developing resource allocation policies. We assessed policy preparedness and substantive triage criteria within existing policies using a cross-sectional survey distributed to public health personnel and healthcare providers between March 23 and April 23, 2020. Personnel and providers from 68 organizations from 34 US states responded. While half of the organizations did not yet have formal allocation policies, all but 4 were in the process of developing policies. Using manual abstraction and natural language processing, we summarize the origins and features of the policies. Most policies included objective triage criteria, specified inapplicable criteria, separated triage and clinical decision making, detailed reassessment plans, offered an appeals process, and addressed palliative care. All but 1 policy referenced a sequential organ failure assessment score as a triage criterion, and 10 policies categorically excluded patients. Six policies were almost identical, tracing their origins to influenza planning. This sample of policies reflects organizational strategies of exemplar-based policy development and the use of objective criteria in triage decisions, either before or instead of clinical judgment, to support ethical distribution of resources. Future guidance is warranted on how to adapt policies across disease type, choose objective criteria, and specify processes that rely on clinical judgments.
| S-EPMC10773001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInto the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the second year of in-person learning for many K-12 schools in the United States, the benefits of mitigation strategies in this setting are still unclear. We compare COVID-19 cases in school-aged children and adolescents between a school district with a mandatory mask-wearing policy to one with an optional mask-wearing policy, during and after the peak period of the Delta variant wave of infection.MethodsCOVID-19 cases during the Delta variant wave (August 2021) and post the wave (October 2021) were obtained from public health records. Cases of K-12 students, stratified by grade level (elementary, middle, and high school) and school districts across two counties, were included in the statistical and spatial analyses. COVID-19 case rates were determined and spatially mapped. Regression was performed adjusting for specific covariates.ResultsMask-wearing was associated with lower COVID-19 cases during the peak Delta variant period; overall, regardless of the Delta variant period, higher COVID-19 rates were seen in older aged students.ConclusionThis study highlights the need for more layered prevention strategies and policies that take into consideration local community transmission levels, age of students, and vaccination coverage to ensure that students remain safe at school while optimizing their learning environment.
| S-EPMC10177845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelays in detection and treatment of breast cancer can lead to increased mortality. To date, participation in organized breast cancer screenings (OBCS) has been suboptimal worldwide. The objective of this study was to investigate the factors associated with deferral or non-performance of mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic for women who had previously participated in OBCS.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted on a cohort of 6282 women from the Aube Department of France, who were invited to an OBCS in 2020. Participants were divided into women who promptly underwent screening after receiving an invitation (between 22 and 25 months elapsed since the last mammogram), women who underwent late screening (≥26 months since the last mammogram), and those who were never screened. Data were collected from a self-reported questionnaire. Comparative and multivariable analyses modeling the probability of each type of attendance were performed using these data.ResultsIn total, 2301 women (aged 50-74 years) returned a valid questionnaire. Compared to women who promptly underwent mammography, non- and late-screening participants were younger, had less frequent gynecological follow-up and a less frequent history of colorectal cancer screening. Women with higher education status and those residing in socially disadvantaged areas were more likely to attend late.ConclusionThe absence of regular gynecological follow-up and the absence of colorectal cancer screening were significant factors associated with deferral of or non-attendance at OBCS.
| S-EPMC11349821 | biostudies-literature