"Having a Child Meant I had a Real Life": Reproductive Coercion and Childbearing Motivations Among Young Black Men Living in Baltimore.

Despite disproportionate health outcome disparities experienced by Black women, reproductive coercion (RC), a range of behaviors to promote unwanted pregnancy and childbearing motivations among poor young Black men are underexamined in current empirical literature. We aimed to describe perceptions of RC behaviors and childbearing motivations among poor young Black men in Baltimore City. We recruited a convenience sample of young Black men aged 18 to 25 (N = 25). Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and demographic surveys. Thematic analysis was guided by Miller's Traits-Desires-Intentions-Behaviors (TDIB) framework. According to survey data (N = 23), mean age was 22 (2.1). Majority of participants reported sexual relationships with one person (74%; n = 17), almost half (48%; n = 12) were biological fathers, and six (26%) participants reported using RC toward an intimate partner; three (13%) reported experiencing RC behaviors from a female partner. According to qualitative interviews (N = 25), participants described perceived women-partner motivations for RC as entrapment. Childbearing motivations were influenced by (a) legacies and bonding and (b) escaping/correcting the past. Childbearing desires included (a) love feelings and intimacy and (b) good father. Childbearing intentions included (a) resistance to medical interventions and (b) preparation. Perceptions of RC and childbearing motivations reflected desires from participants to fulfill cultural expectations for conventional masculinity and enhance personal dreams for fatherhood. Although some perceptions and behavior patterns aligned with previous studies, RC was relatively rare in this sample. Findings demonstrated nuanced antithesis to stereotypical notions of young Black men and fatherhood. Provision of reproductive care for young men and their sexual partners should include discussions about RC, pregnancy motivations, and healthy sexual communication strategies.

Does need for cognitive closure explain individual differences in lung cancer screening? A brief report.

The need for cognitive closure describes the extent to which a person, faced with a decision, prefers any answer in lieu of continued uncertainty. This construct may be relevant in lung cancer screening, which can both reduce and increase uncertainty. We examined whether individual differences in need for cognitive closure are associated with Veterans' completion of lung cancer screening using a self-administered survey (N = 361). We also assessed whether need for cognitive closure moderates an association between screening completion and lung cancer risk perception. Contrary to our main hypothesis, high need for cognitive closure Veterans were not more likely to complete lung cancer screening and need for cognitive closure did not have a moderating role.

Association of invitation to lung cancer screening and tobacco use outcomes in a VA demonstration project.

A potential unintended consequence of lung cancer screening (LCS) is an adverse effect on smoking behaviors. This has been difficult to assess in previous randomized clinical trials. Our goal was to determine whether cessation and relapse behaviors differ between Veterans directly invited (DI) to participate in LCS compared to usual care (UC). We conducted a longitudinal survey of tobacco use outcomes among Veterans (Minneapolis VA) from 2014 to 2015, randomized (2:1) to DI versus UC and stratified by baseline smoking status (current/former). Within the DI group, we explored differences between those who did and did not choose to undergo LCS. A total of 979 patients (n = 660 DI, n = 319 UC) returned the survey at a median of 484 days. Among current smokers (n = 488), smoking abstinence rates and cessation attempts did not differ between DI and UC groups. More baseline smokers in DI were non-daily smokers at follow-up compared to those in UC (25.3% vs 15.6%, OR 1.97 95%CI 1.15-3.36). A significant proportion of former smokers at baseline relapsed, with 17% overall indicating past 30-day smoking. This did not differ between arms. Of those invited to LCS, smoking outcomes did not significantly differ between those who chose to be screened (161/660) versus not. This randomized program evaluation of smoking behaviors in the context of invitation to LCS observed no adverse or beneficial effects on tobacco cessation or relapse among participants invited to LCS, or among those who completed screening. As LCS programs scale and spread nationally, effective cessation programs will be essential.

Initial results of a lung cancer screening demonstration project: a local program evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To describe participation rates, results, and lessons learned from a lung cancer screening (LCS) demonstration project. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study at 1 of 8 centers participating in a national Veterans Health Administration LCS demonstration project. METHODS: An electronic health record (EHR) algorithm and tobacco pack-year (TPY) information prompt identified patients potentially eligible for LCS. LCS invitation was planned to consist of shared decision-making materials, an invitation letter to call the LCS manager, a reminder letter, and an outreach phone call for nonresponders. The outreach call was subsequently dropped due to time constraints on the LCS manager. Lung nodules and incidental findings on LCS low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) were recorded in templated radiology reports and tracked with EHR notes. RESULTS: Of 6133 potentially eligible patients, we identified 1388 patients with eligible TPY information: 918 were invited for LCS and 178 (19%) completed LCS. LCS completion was more likely in patients in the mailing-plus-call outreach group (phase I) compared with the mail-only group (phase II) (22% vs 9%; P <.001). Among those completing an LDCT, 61% had lung nodules requiring follow-up: 43% of the nodules were less than 4 mm in diameter, 12 patients required further diagnostic evaluation, and 2 had lung malignancies. There were 179 incidental LDCT findings in 116 patients, and 20% were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Important considerations in LCS are accurate identification of eligible patients, balancing invitation approaches with resource constraints, and establishing standardized methods for tracking numerous small lung nodules and incidental findings detected by LDCT.

What factors do patients consider most important in making lung cancer screening decisions? Findings from a demonstration project conducted in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The National Lung Screening Trial recently reported that annual low-dose computed tomography screening is associated with decreased lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers. This study sought to identify the factors patients consider important in making lung cancer screening (LCS) decisions, and explore variations by patient characteristics and LCS participation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This observational survey study evaluated the Minneapolis VA LCS Clinical Demonstration Project in which LCS-eligible Veterans (N=1388) were randomized to either Direct LCS Invitation (mailed with decision aid, N=926) or Usual Care (provider referral, N=462). We surveyed participants three months post-randomization (response rate 44%) and report the proportion of respondents rating eight decision-making factors (benefits, harms, and neutral factors) as important by condition, patient characteristics, and LCS completion. RESULTS: Overall, the most important factor was personal risk of lung cancer and the least important factor was health risks from LCS. The reported importance varied by patient characteristics, including smoking status, health status, and education level. Overall, the potential harms of LCS were reported less important than the benefits or the neutral decision-making factors. Exposure to Direct LCS Invitation (with decision aid) increased Veterans' attention to specific decision-making factors; compared to Usual Care respondents, a larger proportion of Direct LCS Invitation respondents rated the chance of false-positive results, LCS knowledge, LCS convenience, and anxiety as important. Those completing LCS considered screening harms less important, with the exception of incidental findings. CONCLUSION: Decision tools influence Veterans' perceptions about LCS decision-making factors. As the factors important to LCS decision making vary by patient characteristics, targeted materials for specific subgroups may be warranted. Attention should be paid to how LCS incidental findings are communicated.