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.

Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing lung cancer and all-cause mortality according to major trials in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, the best ways of implementing screening in local communities requires an understanding of the population the programme will serve. We undertook a study to explore the views of those potentially eligible for, and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to taking part in, lung screening, to inform the development of a feasibility study. METHODS: Men and women aged 45-70, living in urban and rural Scotland, and either self-reported people who smoke or who recently quit, were invited to take part in the study via research agency Taylor McKenzie. Eleven men and 14 women took part in three virtual focus groups exploring their views on lung screening. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis, assisted by QSR NVivo. FINDINGS: Three overarching themes were identified: (1) Knowledge, awareness and acceptability of lung screening, (2) Barriers and facilitators to screening and (3) Promoting screening and implementation ideas. Participants were largely supportive of lung screening in principle and described the importance of the early detection of cancer. Emotional and psychological concerns as well as system-level and practical issues were discussed as posing barriers and facilitators to lung screening. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the views of people potentially eligible for a lung health check can usefully inform the development of a further study to test the feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The LUNGSCOT study has convened a patient advisory group to advise on all aspects of study development and implementation. Patient representatives commented on the focus group study design, study materials and ethics application, and two representatives read the focus group transcripts.