Search

Key clinical and community members need to be involved in the identification of feasible and impactful implementation strategies for translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. While a wide range of implementation strategies has been developed, there is little research on their applicability for cancer prevention and control (CPC) efforts in primary care. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to identify implementation strategies they perceive as most feasible and impactful. The survey included both primary prevention behavior change counseling and cancer screening issues. Analyses contrasted ratings of feasibility and impact of nine implementation strategies, and among clinicians in different settings with a focus on comparisons between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural settings. We recruited a convenience sample of 326 respondents from a wide range of practice types from four practice-based research networks in 49 states and including 177 clinicians in rural settings. Ratings of impact were somewhat higher than those for feasibility. Few of the nine implementation strategies were high on both impact and feasibility. Only 'adapting to my practice' was rated higher than a 4 ('moderate') on both impact and feasibility. There were relatively few differences between rural and non-rural clinicians or associated with other clinician or setting characteristics. There is considerable variability in perceived impact and feasibility of implementation strategies for CPC activities among family medicine clinicians. It is important to assess both feasibility and impact of implementation strategies as well as their generalizability across settings. Our results suggest that optimal strategies to implement evidence-based CPC activities will likely need to be adapted for primary care settings. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and identify practical, implementation partner informed implementation strategies., Author(s): Russell E. Glasgow [sup.1] [sup.2] , Michaela Brtnikova [sup.2] [sup.3] , L. Miriam Dickinson [sup.1] , Jennifer K. Carroll [sup.1] [sup.4] , Jamie L. Studts [sup.5] [sup.6] Author Affiliations: [...]

Author(s): Sarah McQueary Flynn [sup.1] , Tory A. Eisenlohr-Moul [sup.2] , Suzanne C. Segerstrom [sup.3 ] , Christen T. Logue [sup.1] , Jamie L. Studts [sup.3] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.441548.8, [...]

Background: Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018.Methods: The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year.Results: Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%).Conclusions: Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Oncologist is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Hirsch reports grants from NIH/National Cancer Institute and non-financial support from NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Studts reports personal fees from Johnson & Johnson and Genentech, outside the submitted work; and Dr. Studts volunteers on the Scientific Leadership Board of GO2 for Lung Cancer and the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Dr. Studts receives grant funding from National Cancer Institute, the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, outside the submitted work. Ms. Hoover has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr Crossnohere receives funding support through a grant to the university from Pfizer. This activity is not related to this project. Dr Paskett is the PI of grants to the university from Genentech, Pfizer, Merk Foundation, Astra Zeneca, and Guardant Health. She is also on advisory boards for Merck and GSK. None of these activities are related to this project.