Search

Introduction: Translating outcomes from randomized trials of lung cancer screening into community practice settings has been challenging. We developed a framework—the Engaged Approach to Lung Cancer Screening (EA-LCS)—for improving adherence and individual and population health outcomes in LCS. Methods: Employing community-engaged research, we conducted semistructured interviews with LCS program staff (N = 15) and participants (N = 7) and administered brief surveys to understand LCS adherence. We combined our knowledge of LCS implementation with data to formulate the EA-LCS framework, including principles and strategies instrumental for LCS adherence. Results: Program staff identified four factors that facilitated adherence: (1) the use of specialized tracking software, (2) the importance of personal connection and a reliable touchpoint, (3) centralized program operations, and (4) standardization and streamlining of reports to participants and clinicians. Participant data identified four factors supporting adherence: (1) a single contact point and information availability, (2) tailored communications, (3) personalized results delivery, and (4) increased scan accessibility. Combined analyses identified three overarching themes in the EA-LCS framework: (1) respect, (2) trust, and (3) engagement. Conclusions: The EA-LCS conceptual model integrates three foundational principles (person-centeredness, trustworthy relationships, and sustained communications) to enhance LCS adherence. Efforts are underway to translate the EA-LCS framework into materials to support adherence.

Background Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45–70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification. Results Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve “cancer outcomes” by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%). Conclusions Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

Introduction Effective communication and messaging strategies are crucial to raise awareness and support participants' efforts to adhere to lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines. Health messages that incorporate images are processed more efficiently, and given the stigma surrounding lung cancer and cigarette smoking, emphasis must be placed on selecting imagery that is engaging to LCS-eligible individuals. This exploratory study aimed to identify person-centered themes surrounding LCS imagery. Materials and Methods This qualitative study leveraged a modified photovoice approach and interviews to define descriptive themes about LCS imagery. Study participants eligible for annual LCS who had a CT scan within 12 months were asked to select three images and participate in a semi-structured interview about photo selection, likes, and dislikes. Participants were also asked their opinions about images from current LCS communications featuring matches, smoke, and cigarettes. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Results Data saturation was reached after thirteen individuals completed the photovoice activity; each participant selected three pictures resulting in a total of 39 images representing LCS. Over half (54%) of images selected contained lungs and only 4 (10%) contained smoking-related elements. Five main themes emerged: 1) images should focus on good news and early detection; 2) people should be relatable; 3) pictures with lungs can dually support lung health or invoke fear; 4) opportunity for education or awareness; and 5) should not be judgmental and induce stigma. Conclusions These findings suggest that LCS imagery should not contain negative or stigmatizing elements but instead be relatable and educational. This information can inform communication and messaging interventions and strategies for future LCS participation, awareness, and educational research.

Objective: Adequate physician-patient communication about cancer recurrence is vital to quality of life and to informed decision-making related to survivorship care. The current study was guided by a cognitive-affective framework to examine communication with family and physicians about breast cancer recurrence risk. Methods: A survey of recently-diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer patients in Appalachia investigated physician-patient and familial communication about breast cancer recurrence risk. Results: Over 30% of participants reported not talking to family or physicians about breast cancer recurrence risk. Younger patients reported more conversations, and speaking with physicians was associated with greater perception risk factors associated with recurrence risk. Greater worry about recurrence was associated with more communication with family and plans to talk to family, physicians, and friends about recurrence risk in the future. Conclusion: Additional supports for patients and physicians are needed to improve understanding of breast cancer recurrence risk and risk factors for recurrence. Innovation: Family communication about breast cancer recurrence risk is understudied. The combination of physician and family communication adds novelty to our analysis.

Introduction: Stigma thwarts progress in lung cancer risk reduction and control and adversely affects patients across the entire lung cancer care continuum. In developing and disseminating patient and public-facing interventions to increase lung screening, we must be cognizant of how communications have the potential for further stigmatization of at-risk populations. Creation of the Lung Cancer Stigma Communications Assessment Tool (LCS-CAT) version 1 was supported by the American Cancer Society’s National Lung Cancer Roundtable to help content developers identify, remove, and replace potentially stigmatizing language and imagery from materials designed to engage individuals across the lung cancer continuum. Methods: The LCS-CAT considers language, imagery, and context and was used to audit a public-facing health communication and decision support tool called LungTalk. Results: The audit performed by two behavioral scientists revealed multiple issues in all three areas, and specific feedback and alternatives were identified. Conclusions: Applying the LCS-CAT to LungTalk was a productive process that helped remove potentially stigmatizing language and imagery from this tool designed to engage individuals in the process of making an informed decision about lung screening. To support destigmatization of lung cancer, communication creators should consider a stigma biopsy on all public-facing campaigns for lung screening to help identify, eliminate, and replace messages that could compromise engagement with the lung cancer screening opportunity.

Abstract Background Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients. Methods This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues. Results Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer. Conclusions Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Abstract Introduction It is not realistic for most clinicians to perform the multitude of recommended preventive primary care services. This is especially true in low resource and rural settings, creating challenges to delivering high-quality care. This study collected stakeholder input from clinicians on which services they most need to improve. Methods The authors conducted a survey of primary care physicians 9–12/2021, with an emphasis on rural practices, to assess areas in which clinicians felt the greatest needs for improvement. The survey focused on primary prevention (behavior change counseling) and cancer screening, and contrasted needs for improvement for these services vs. other types of screening, and between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural practices. Results There were 326 respondents from 4 different practice-based research networks, a wide range of practice types, 49 states and included 177 clinicians in rural settings. Respondents rated the need to improve delivery of primary prevention counseling services highest, with needs for nutrition and dietary assessment and counseling rated highest followed by physical activity and with almost no differences between rural and nonrural. Needs for improvement in cancer screenings were rated higher than non-cancer screenings, except for blood pressure screening. Conclusions Both rural and nonrural primary care clinicians feel a need for improvement, especially with primary prevention activities. Although future research is needed to replicate these findings with different populations and other types of preventive service activities, greater priority should be given to development of practical, stakeholder informed assistance and resources for primary care to conduct primary prevention.

Abstract Background Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide, despite easy detection and effective treatment. Annual screening rates in the USA remain low, especially for the disadvantaged, which telemedicine-based DR screening (TDRS) during routine primary care has been shown to improve. Screening rates from such programs have varied, however, pointing to inconsistent implementation and unaddressed barriers. This work seeks to identify and prioritize modifiable barriers for targeted intervention. Methods In this final phase of an exploratory mixed-methods study, we developed, validated, and administered a 62-item survey to multilevel stakeholders involved with TDRS in primary care safety-net clinics. Survey items were aligned with previously identified determinants of clinic-level screening and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analyses were used to identify and rank independent variables predictive of individual-level TDRS screening performance. Results Overall, 133 of the 341 invited professionals responded (39%), representing 20 safety-net clinics across 6 clinical systems. Respondents were predominately non-Hispanic White (77%), female (94%), and between 31 and 65 years of age (79%). Satisfaction with TDRS was high despite low self-reported screening rates. The most important screening determinants were: provider reinforcement of TDRS importance; explicit instructions by providers to staff; effective reminders; standing orders; high relative priority among routine diabetic measures; established TDRS workflows; performance feedback; effective TDRS champions; and leadership support. Conclusions In this survey of stakeholders involved with TDRS in safety-net clinics, screening was low despite high satisfaction with the intervention. The best predictors of screening performance mapped to the CFIR constructs Leadership Engagement, Compatibility, Goals & Feedback, Relative Priority, Champions, and Available Resources. These findings facilitate the prioritization of implementation strategies targeting determinants of TDRS performance, potentially increasing its public health impact.

Abstract Background Recommended annual diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening for people with diabetes has low rates in the USA, especially in underserved populations. Telemedicine DR screening (TDRS) in primary care clinics could expand access and increase adherence. Despite this potential, studies have observed high variability in TDRS rates among clinics and over time, highlighting the need for implementation supports. Previous studies of determinants of TDRS focus on patients’ perspectives, with few studies targeting upstream multi-level barriers and facilitators. Addressing this gap, this qualitative study aimed to identify and evaluate multi-level perceived determinants of TDRS in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), to inform the development of targeted implementation strategies. Methods We developed a theory-based semi-structured interview tool based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We conducted 22 key informant interviews with professionals involved in TDRS (administrators, clinicians, staff). The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reported barriers and facilitators were organized into emergent themes and classified according to CFIR constructs. Constructs influencing TDRS implementation were rated for each study site and compared across sites by the investigators. Results Professionals identified 21 main barriers and facilitators under twelve constructs of the five CFIR domains. Several identified themes were novel, whereas others corroborated previous findings in the literature (e.g., lack of time and human resources, presence of a champion). Of the 21 identified themes, 13 were classified under the CFIR’s Inner Setting domain, specifically under the constructs Compatibility and Available Resources. Themes under the Outer Setting domain (constructs External Incentives and Cost) were primarily perceived by administrators, whereas themes in other domains were perceived across all professional categories. Two Inner Setting (Leadership Engagement, Goals and Feedback) and two Process (Champion, Engaging) constructs were found to strongly distinguish sites with high versus low TDRS performance. Conclusions This study classified barriers and facilitators to TDRS as perceived by administrators, clinicians, and staff in FQHCs, then identified CFIR constructs that distinguished high- and low-performance clinics. Implementation strategies such as academic detailing and collection and communication of program data and successes to leadership; engaging of stakeholders through involvement in implementation planning; and appointment of intervention champions may therefore improve TDRS implementation and sustainment in resource-constrained settings.

Abstract Objectives Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is limited information available regarding preferences among high‐risk individuals concerning LCS. In this study, we use a conjoint valuation analysis (CVA) to better understand which LCS attributes most affect LCS preferences. Materials and Methods We implemented a web‐based nationally representative survey that included a full‐profile CVA exercise. Participants were over the age of 45, had at least a 20 pack‐year smoking history, and no history of lung cancer. The CVA instrument included five LCS attributes, and additional survey items collected demographic and psychosocial information. Results Participants (n = 210) had a mean age of 61 (SD 8.5) years, approximately half were female (51.9%), and were racially/ethnically diverse. Average relative importance of the LCS program attributes was (from high to low): out of pocket costs (27.3 ± 17.7); provider recommendation (24.8 ± 13.4); mortality reduction (17.2 ± 8.9); false‐positive rate (15.8 ± 10.4); and ease of access (14.8 ± 7.3). There was large variation among individuals, but few significant associations of propensity to screen with individual demographic characteristics. Average screening propensity across individuals (1‐9 scale) was 3.63 ± 1.6, and average rates of individual scenarios ranged from 2.60 ± 2.00 to 5.57 ± 2.13, indicating low inclination for screening. Conclusions We found that overall propensity for screening is low in a high‐risk population, and that out of pocket costs were of greater importance to potential screeners than mortality reduction or false‐positive rates. Thus, individuals considering or eligible for LCS need additional education and support regarding the LCS landscape in order to achieve informed decision making.

Background. Recent data and policy decisions have led to the availability of lung cancer screening (LCS) for individuals who are at increased risk of developing lung cancer. In establishing implementation policies, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required that individuals who meet eligibility criteria for LCS receive a patient counseling and shared decision-making consultation prior to LCS. Methods. This study evaluated the potential of a values clarification/preference elicitation exercise and brief educational intervention to reduce decisional conflict regarding LCS. Participants ( N = 210) completing a larger online survey responded to a measure of decisional conflict prior to and following administration of a conjoint survey and brief educational narrative about LCS. The conjoint survey included 22 choice sets (two of which were holdout cards), incorporating 5 attributes with 17 levels. Results. Results pertaining to changes in decisional conflict showed that participants reported statistically significantly and clinically meaningful reductions in decisional conflict following administration of the brief educational narrative and conjoint survey across the total score (Δ = 29.30; d = 1.09) and all four decisional conflict subscales: Uncertainty (Δ = 27.75; d = 0.73), Informed (Δ = 35.32; d = 1.11), Values Clarity (Δ = 31.82; d = 0.85), and Support (Δ = 18.78; d = 0.66). Discussion. While the study design precludes differentiating the effects of the brief educational narrative and the conjoint survey, data suggest that these tools offer a reasonable approach to clarifying personal beliefs and perspectives regarding LCS participation. Given the complicated nature of LCS decisions and recent policies advocating informed and shared decision-making approaches, conjoint surveys should be evaluated as one of the tools that could help individuals make choices about LCS participation.

Abstract Background Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a major risk factor in the acquisition and transmission of HIV. Clinical practice guidelines call for the integration of HIV services in OUD treatment. This mixed methods study describes the integration of HIV services in buprenorphine treatment and examines whether HIV services vary by prescribers’ medical specialty and across practice settings. Methods Data were obtained via qualitative interviews with buprenorphine experts (n = 21) and mailed surveys from US buprenorphine prescribers (n = 1174). Survey measures asked about screening for HIV risk behaviors at intake, offering HIV education, recommending all new patients receive HIV testing, and availability of on-site HIV testing. Prescribers’ medical specialty, practice settings, caseload demographics, and physician demographics were measured. Multivariate models of HIV services were estimated, while accounting for the nesting of physicians within states. Results Qualitative interviews revealed that physicians often use injection behaviors as the primary indicator for whether a patient should be tested for HIV. Interviews revealed that HIV-related services were often viewed as beyond the scope of practice among general psychiatrists. Surveys indicated that prescribers screened for an average of 3.2 of 5 HIV risk behaviors (SD = 1.6) at intake. About 62.0% of prescribers delivered HIV education to patients and 53.2% recommended HIV testing to all new patients, but only 32.3% offered on-site HIV testing. Addiction specialists and psychiatrists screened for significantly more HIV risk behaviors than physicians in other specialties. Addiction specialists and psychiatrists were significantly less likely than other physicians to offer on-site testing. Physicians in individual medical practice were significantly less likely to recommend HIV testing and to offer onsite testing than physicians in other settings. Conclusions Buprenorphine treatment providers have not uniformly integrated HIV-related screening, education, and testing services for patients. Differences by medical specialty and practice setting suggest an opportunity for targeting efforts to increase implementation.

Head and neck cancer and its multidisciplinary treatment entail difficulties in communication confounded by the communication disabilities that may be associated with surgical treatment. In a population with a strong likelihood of limited computer skills, a simplified communication with video and telephony was refined by algorithms appropriate for this population and developed in a Phase I effort. A randomized control trial was designed and 75 patients enrolled. In the intervention group, compliance was 84% over 99 days and patient acceptance was quite high. Data analysis for comparison without intervention is ongoing for outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To inform personalised home-based rehabilitation interventions, we sought to gain in-depth understanding of lung cancer survivors’ (1) attitudes and perceived self-efficacy towards telemedicine; (2) knowledge of the benefits of rehabilitation and exercise training; (3) perceived facilitators and preferences for telerehabilitation; and (4) health goals following curative intent therapy.Design We conducted semi-structured interviews guided by Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and used directed content analysis to identify salient themes.Setting One USA Veterans Affairs Medical Center.Participants We enrolled 20 stage I–IIIA lung cancer survivors who completed curative intent therapy in the prior 1–6 months. Eighty-five percent of participants had prior experience with telemedicine, but none with telerehabilitation or rehabilitation for lung cancer.Results Participants viewed telemedicine as convenient, however impersonal and technologically challenging, with most reporting low self-efficacy in their ability to use technology. Most reported little to no knowledge of the potential benefits of specific exercise training regimens, including those directed towards reducing dyspnoea, fatigue or falls. If they were to design their own telerehabilitation programme, participants had a predominant preference for live and one-on-one interaction with a therapist, to enhance therapeutic relationship and ensure correct learning of the training techniques. Most participants had trouble stating their explicit health goals, with many having questions or concerns about their lung cancer status. Some wanted better control of symptoms and functional challenges or engage in healthful behaviours.Conclusions Features of telerehabilitation interventions for lung cancer survivors following curative intent therapy may need to include strategies to improve self-efficacy and skills with telemedicine. Education to improve knowledge of the benefits of rehabilitation and exercise training, with alignment to patient-formulated goals, may increase uptake. Exercise training with live and one-on-one therapist interaction may enhance learning, adherence, and completion. Future work should determine how to incorporate these features into telerehabilitation.

BackgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with the majority of lung cancer occurrence diagnosed after the disease has already metastasized. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography can diagnose early-stage disease, especially when eligible individuals participate in screening on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, annual adherence has emerged as a challenge for academic and community screening programs, endangering the individual and population health benefits of LCS. Reminder messages have effectively increased adherence rates in breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screenings but have not been tested with LCS participants who experience unique barriers to screening associated with the stigma of smoking and social determinants of health. ObjectiveThis research aims to use a theory-informed, multiphase, and mixed methods approach with LCS experts and participants to develop a set of clear and engaging reminder messages to support LCS annual adherence. MethodsIn aim 1, survey data informed by the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing model will be collected to assess how LCS participants process health information aimed at health protective behavior to develop content for reminder messages and pinpoint options for message targeting and tailoring. Aim 2 focuses on identifying themes for message imagery through a modified photovoice activity that asks participants to identify 3 images that represent LCS and then participate in an interview about the selection, likes, and dislikes of each photo. A pool of candidate messages for multiple delivery platforms will be developed in aim 3, using results from aim 1 for message content and aim 2 for imagery selection. The refinement of message content and imagery combinations will be completed through iterative feedback from LCS experts and participants. ResultsData collection began in July 2022 and will be completed by May 2023. The final reminder message candidates are expected to be completed by June 2023. ConclusionsThis project proposes a novel approach to facilitate adherence to annual LCS through the development of reminder messages that embrace content and imagery representative of the target population directly in the design process. Developing effective strategies to increase LCS adherence is instrumental in achieving optimal LCS outcomes at individual and population health levels. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/46657

We describe the characteristics of individuals being screened in community settings including factors influencing screening decisions and the level of information sought prior to screening. Individuals from two community-based radiology clinics ( N = 27) were surveyed after screening. Screening efficacy and salience were the most important factors in screening decisions, whereas healthcare provider recommendations were rated not important. Half of participants reported no or little conversation about screening with their primary care provider, and 61.5 percent had not sought any information on screening. Individuals being screened in a community setting are unlikely to have sufficient information for an informed decision about screening.