Influences on Lung Cancer Screening Initiation and Retention in Rural Alabama.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Despite the introduction of lung cancer screening using low dose computed tomography (LDCT), overall screening rates in the U.S. remain low, with certain populations including Black and rural communities experiencing additional disparities. The primary objective of this study was to understand the facilitators of lung cancer screening initiation and retention in Alabama reported by people at risk from mostly rural, mostly Black populations in Jefferson County-including the urban center of Birmingham-and 6 rural counties: Choctaw, Dallas, Greene, Hale, Marengo, and Sumter. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 58 people who underwent lung cancer screening between December 2019 and January 2022. Participant responses were recorded by the interviewer for analysis. Open-ended responses were coded to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: The most reported influences to initiate screening were information or suggestion from a Community Health Advisor (CHAs) or the supervising county coordinator, suggestion from a friend, or consideration of a personal history of smoking. Most participants reported multiple influences. Physicians were not very influential in decisions to initiate screening, but they were extremely influential in participants' intent to continue screening, both positively and negatively. Knowing the recommended timeline for their annual scans was also a predictor of intention to continue screening. Participants screened during the COVID-19 state of emergency expressed less certainty about dates of next scans and more ambivalence about intention to continue screening. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the benefit of using multiple methods to support increased awareness of and interest in lung cancer screening, particularly when educational messaging through CHAs is used. Clear guideline-based messages from healthcare providers about recommended screening is important for increasing retention. COVID-19 related implementation challenges impacted screening recruitment and retention. Future research is warranted to further explore use of CHAs in lung cancer screening.

Attitudes toward telemedicine among urban and rural residents.

INTRODUCTION: Adoption of telemedicine by healthcare facilities has dramatically increased since the start of coronavirus pandemic; yet, major differences exist in universal acceptance of telemedicine across different population groups. The goal of this study was to examine population-based factors associated with current and/or future use of telemedicine in Alabama. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 532 participants online or by phone, in four urban and eight rural counties in Alabama. Data were collected on: demographics, health insurance coverage, medical history, access to technology, and its use in accessing healthcare services. Generalized logit regression models were used to estimate the odds of choosing "virtual visit" and "phone communication" compared to "in-person visit" for the preferred choice of visit with the healthcare provider; as well as odds for willingness to participate in "virtual visit" in the future. RESULTS: Our study sample had a mean age of 43 (±15) years, 72.9% women, 45.9% Black or African American; 59.4% population living in an urban county. The odds of "phone communication" were higher compared to the odds of "in-person visit", with a unit increase in age (odds ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.03), after adjusting for other covariates. Among participants with past experience of virtual communications, the odds for choosing "virtual visit" were significantly higher compared to choice of in-person visit (odds ratio for virtual visit: 3.23, 95% confidence interval: 2.01-5.18), adjusted for other covariates. Further, people with college or more education were 71% less likely to choose "No" compared to those with high school or lower general education development education for future virtual visit [odds ratio for college or more: 0.29, 95% confodence interval: 0.10-0.87). Likewise, participants residing in rural counties were 57% less likely to choose "No" compared to urban counties for future virtual visit (odds ratio for rural participants: 0.43, 95% confidence interval:0.19-0.97). DISCUSSION: Our study found notable differences in age, education, and rurality for use and/or preference for telemedicine. Medical institutions and healthcare providers will need to account for these differences to ensure that the implementation of telemedicine does not exacerbate existing health disparities.

Factors Associated with Perceived Susceptibility to COVID-19 Among Urban and Rural Adults in Alabama.

We examined factors associated with and reasons for perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 among urban and rural adults in Alabama. We surveyed 575 eligible participants' engagement in preventive behaviors, concern about COVID-19 in their communities, perceived susceptibility to the virus, and reasons for susceptibility across three response options (Yes, No, and Don't Know/Not Sure). Bivariate analyses compared characteristics by level of perceived susceptibility to COVID-19. A multinomial logistic regression model evaluated the association of demographics, health insurance coverage, and chronic illness status with perceived susceptibility. Participants' race, gender, and educational attainment were significantly associated with perceived susceptibility to COVID-19. African Americans and males had higher odds of responding 'No', compared to 'Yes' and 'Don't Know/Not Sure' than Whites and females. Participants with a high school education and lower had higher odds of responding 'Don't Know/Not Sure' versus 'Yes' compared to those with college or higher education. Those unconcerned about COVID-19 in their community had higher odds of responding 'No' (OR = 2.51, CI 1.35-4.68) and 'Don't Know/Not Sure' (OR = 2.51, CI 1.26-4.99) versus 'Yes', as compared to those who were concerned. Possibility of exposure at work was the most frequent reasons for perceiving themselves susceptible to COVID-19, engagement in recommended preventive measures was the most frequent reason among respondents who indicated 'No', and uncertainty/perception that everyone is at risk was the most frequent reason among the ones who indicated 'Don't Know/Not Sure'. Results indicate that tailored efforts to heighten perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 among specific demographics are needed.