Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not
A qualitative analysis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19506035 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Claire Draucker (0000-0001-9844-351X, Indiana University School of Nursing Indianapolis Indiana, corresponding author), Susan M Rawl (0000-0003-2052-2853, Indiana University School of Nursing Indianapolis Indiana), Emilee Vode (0000-0003-0006-914X, Indiana University School of Nursing Indianapolis Indiana), Lisa Carter‐harri (0000-0002-6448-6033, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York New York) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 1314-1321 |
| Publication date | 2019-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Expectations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/hex.12975 |
| PMID | 31560837 |
| OpenAlex | W2975116392 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 20 |
BACKGROUND: Although new screening programmes with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer have been implemented throughout the United States, screening uptake remains low and screening-eligible persons' decisions to screen or not remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To describe how current and former long-term smokers explain their decisions regarding participation in lung cancer screening. DESIGN: Phone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide were conducted to ask screening-eligible persons to describe their decisions regarding screening with LDCT. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with conventional content analytic techniques. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A subsample of 40 participants (20 who had screened and 20 who had not) were drawn from the sample of a survey study whose participants were recruited by Facebook targeted advertisements. RESULTS: The sample was divided into the following five groups based on their decisions regarding lung cancer screening participation: Group 1: no intention to be screened, Group 2: no deliberate consideration but somewhat open to being screened, Group 3: deliberate consideration but no definitive decision to be screened, Group 4: intention to be screened and Group 5: had been screened. Reasons for screening participation decisions are described for each group. Across groups, data revealed that screening-eligible persons have a number of misconceptions regarding LDCT, including that a scan is needed only if one is symptomatic or has not had a chest x-ray. A physician recommendation was a key influence on decisions to screen. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Education initiatives aimed at providers and long-term smokers regarding LDCT is needed. Quality patient/provider communication is most likely to improve screening rates
Family medicine · Lung cancer · Lung cancer screening · Pathology · Phone · Qualitative research · Global Cancer Incidence and Screening · Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment · Medicine · Radiology practices and education
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening
More than Tuskegee
Explaining the Discrepancy between Intentions and Actions
Lung cancer screening
“To know or not to know…?” Push and pull in ever smokers lung screening uptake decision‐making intentions
Providers Role in Colonoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,75 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |