Tobacco quitline staffs' knowledge and attitudes about connecting quitline callers to lung cancer screening educational materials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of training quitline staff in lung cancer screening (LCS) on knowledge and attitudes towards connecting quitline callers to LCS educational materials. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post evaluation within a larger implementation project in the U.S. to support LCS among quitline callers. From July 2020 to June 2021, staff from four quitline service providers completed surveys before and after training on LCS knowledge. After training, staff completed the acceptability of intervention measure, intervention appropriateness measure, and feasibility of the intervention measure. RESULTS: A total of 245 staff completed the initial demographic survey (analytic sample), 130 completed the pre-training survey, and 225 completed the post-training survey. Staff were on average 47.4 years old and 76.7% were female. LCS knowledge improved after the training (n = 120, mean difference = +26.5%, 95% CI 21.6, 31.4, p < 0.001). Overall, staff felt that connecting quitline callers to LCS education materials was acceptable (M = 4.0, SD = 0.8), appropriate (M = 4.1, SD = 0.7), and feasible (M = 4.0, SD = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving training about LCS eligibility and the benefits and harms of screening improved LCS knowledge among quitline staff. Quitline staff found that connecting callers with LCS educational materials is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible, and aligned with their primary mission.

The TELEhealth Shared decision-making Coaching and Navigation in Primary carE (TELESCOPE) intervention: a study protocol for delivering shared decision-making for lung cancer screening by patient navigators.

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality but has potential harms for patients. A shared decision-making (SDM) conversation about LCS is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for LCS reimbursement. To overcome barriers to SDM in primary care, this protocol describes a telehealth decision coaching intervention for LCS in primary care clinics delivered by patient navigators. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation potential, compared with an enhanced usual care (EUC) arm. Methods: Patients (n = 420) of primary care clinicians (n = 120) are being recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial. Clinicians are randomly assigned to 1) TELESCOPE intervention: prior to an upcoming non-acute clinic visit, patients participate in a telehealth decision coaching session about LCS delivered by trained patient navigators and nurse navigators place a low-dose CT scan (LDCT) order for each TELESCOPE patient wanting LCS, or 2) EUC: patients receive enhanced usual care from a clinician. Usual care is enhanced by providing clinicians in both arms with access to a Continuing Medical Education (CME) webinar about LCS and an LCS discussion guide. Patients complete surveys at baseline and 1-week after the scheduled clinic visit to assess quality of the SDM process. Re-navigation is attempted with TELESCOPE patients who have not completed the LDCT within 3 months. One month before being due for an annual screening, TELESCOPE patients whose initial LCS showed low-risk findings are randomly assigned to receive a telehealth decision coaching booster session with a navigator or no booster. Electronic health records are abstracted at 6, 12 and 18 months after the initial decision coaching session (TELESCOPE) or clinic visit (EUC) to assess initial and annual LCS uptake, imaging results, follow-up testing for abnormal findings, cancer diagnoses, treatment, and tobacco treatment referrals. This study will evaluate factors that facilitate or interfere with program implementation using mixed methods. Discussion: We will assess whether a decision coaching and patient navigation intervention can feasibly support high-quality SDM for LCS and guideline-concordant LCS uptake for patients in busy primary care practices serving diverse patient populations. Trial Registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05491213) on August 4, 2022.

Implementing a tobacco-free workplace program at a substance use treatment center: a case study.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorders smoke cigarettes at much higher rates than the general population in the United States and are disproportionately affected by tobacco-related diseases. Many substance use treatment centers do not provide evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment or maintain comprehensive tobacco-free workplace policies. The goal of the current work is to identify barriers and facilitators to a successful and sustainable implementation of a tobacco-free workplace program, which includes a comprehensive tobacco-free policy and evidence-based cessation treatment services, in a substance use treatment center. METHODS: This study is based on an ethnographic approach and uses a qualitative case study design. Data were collected via interviews with staff (n = 6) and clients (n = 16) at the substance use treatment center and site visits (n = 8). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis guided by the extended Normalization Process Theory designed to inform the implementation of innovations in healthcare practice. RESULTS: Staff at the substance use treatment center supported the implementation of the program and shared a good understanding of the purpose of the intervention and its potential benefits. However, the study identified significant challenges faced by the center during implementation, including widespread tobacco use among clients, contributing to attitudes among staff that tobacco cessation was a low-priority problem due to a perceived lack of interest in quitting and inability to quit among their clients. We identified several factors that contributed to changing this attitude, including provision of tobacco training to staff, active leadership support, low number of staff members who smoked, and access to material resources, including nicotine replacement products. The implementation and active enforcement of a comprehensive tobacco-free workplace program contributed to a gradual change in attitudes and improved the provision of evidence-based tobacco cessation care at the substance use treatment center. CONCLUSIONS: Substance use treatment centers can integrate tobacco cessation practices in their daily operations, despite multiple challenges they face due to the complex behavioral health and socioeconomic needs of their clients. With proper support, substance use treatment centers can provide much needed tobacco cessation care to their clients who are disproportionately affected by tobacco-related health conditions and systemic health inequities.

Implementing a Telehealth Shared Counseling and Decision-Making Visit for Lung Cancer Screening in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Background: Veterans suffer substantial morbidity and mortality from lung cancer. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce mortality. Guidelines recommend counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) to address the benefits and harms of screening and the importance of tobacco cessation before patients undergo screening. Observations: We implemented a centralized LCS program at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center with a nurse program coordinator (NPC)-led telephone visit. Our multidisciplinary team ensured that veterans referred from primary care met eligibility criteria, that LDCT results were correctly coded by radiology, and that pulmonary promptly evaluated abnormal LDCT. The NPC mailed a decision aid to the veteran and scheduled a SDM telephone visit. We surveyed veterans after the visit using validated measures to assess knowledge, decisional conflict, and quality of decision making. We conducted 105 SDM visits, and 91 veterans agreed to LDCT. Overall, 84% of veterans reported no decisional conflict, and 59% reported high-quality decision making. While most veterans correctly answered questions about the harms of radiation, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis, few knew when to stop screening, and most overestimated the benefit of screening and the predictive value of an abnormal scan. Tobacco cessation interventions were offered to 72 currently smoking veterans. Conclusions: We successfully implemented an LCS program that provides SDM and tobacco cessation support using a centralized telehealth model. While veterans were confident about screening decisions, knowledge testing indicated important deficits, and many did not engage meaningfully in SDM. Clinicians should frame the decision as patient centered at the time of referral, highlight the importance of SDM, and be able to provide adequate decision support.

Practical Assessment and Management of Vulnerabilities in Older Patients Receiving Systemic Cancer Therapy: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update the ASCO guideline (2018) on the practical assessment and management of age-associated vulnerabilities in older patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses from January 2016 to December 2022. RESULTS: A total of 26 publications met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the update. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Expert Panel reiterates its overarching recommendation from the prior guideline that geriatric assessment (GA), including all essential domains, should be used to identify vulnerabilities or impairments that are not routinely captured in oncology assessments for all patients over 65 years old with cancer. Based on recently published RCTs demonstrating significantly improved clinical outcomes, all older adults with cancer (65+ years old) receiving systemic therapy with GA-identified deficits should have GA-guided management (GAM) included in their care plan. GAM includes using GA findings to inform cancer treatment decision-making as well as to address impairments through appropriate interventions, counseling, and/or referrals. A GA should include high priority aging-related domains known to be associated with outcomes in older adults with cancer: physical and cognitive function, emotional health, comorbid conditions, polypharmacy, nutrition, and social support. Clinical adaptation of the GA based on patient population, resources, and time is appropriate.The Panel recommends the Practical Geriatric Assessment as one option for this purpose (https://old-prod.asco.org/sites/new-www.asco.org/files/content-files/practice-patients/documents/2023-PGA-Final.pdf; https://youtu.be/jnaQIjOz2Dw; https://youtu.be/nZXtwaGh0Z0).Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Referral Practices in Texas Organizations Serving People with Substance Use Disorders.

For people at elevated risk for lung cancer, lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality. People with non-nicotine substance use disorders (SUDs) have elevated rates of smoking compared with the general population, highlighting them as a priority population for LCS consideration. Although research has shown LCS is underutilized, there is little literature to inform whether organizations that serve individuals with SUDs have existing clinical protocols surrounding LCS. In the current study, we examine the LCS eligibility and referral practices among these organizations. We conducted a statewide needs assessment survey in 2021 to discern how tobacco use was being addressed at Texas organizations that provide treatment or services to individuals with SUDs. Respondents were asked to report on their center's LCS eligibility and referral practices. The analytic sample consists of 125 respondents who represented 23 federally qualified health centers, 29 global local mental health authorities (LMHAs), 12 substance use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 61 standalone substance use treatment centers. Very few respondents indicated that healthcare providers at their center made referrals to LCS for patients (8.8%); a few respondents indicated that their healthcare providers assessed patients' eligibility for LCS but did not make referrals (3.2%). Intervention and implementation efforts are needed in these and other SUD healthcare settings to bolster organizational capacity and ensure that patients are being navigated to lung cancer screening at multiple touch points across the care continuum.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening. METHODS: We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS. GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

Leveraging the Multidisciplinary Tumor Board for Dissemination of Evidence-Based Recommendations on the Staging and Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with evidence-based treatment guidelines for gastric cancer across the United States is poor. This pilot study aimed to create and evaluate a change package for disseminating information on the staging and treatment of gastric cancer during multidisciplinary tumor boards and for identifying barriers to implementation. METHODS: The change package included a 10-min video, a brief knowledge assessment, and a discussion guide. Commission on Cancer-accredited sites that perform gastrectomy were invited to participate. Participants completed the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale (range, 12-60) and scales to measure the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness (score range, 4-20). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to further define inner and outer setting barriers. RESULTS: Seven centers participated in the study. A total of 74 participants completed the pre-video knowledge assessment, and 55 participants completed the post-video assessment. The recommendations found to be most controversial were separate staging laparoscopy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy. Sum scores were calculated for acceptability (mean, 17.43 ± 2.51) appropriateness (mean, 16.86 ± 3.24), and feasibility (mean, 16.14 ± 3.07) of the change package. The ORIC scores (mean, 46.57 ± 8.22) correlated with responses to the open-ended questions. The key barriers identified were patient volume, skills in the procedures, and attitudes and beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: The change package was moderately to highly feasible, appropriate, and acceptable. The activity identified specific recommendations for gastric cancer care that are considered controversial and local barriers to implementation. Future efforts could focus on building skills and knowledge as well as the more difficult issue of attitudes and beliefs.

Patients' Preferences for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Background. For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC), adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has shown efficacy, but men are often reluctant to accept it because of its impact on quality of life. Methods. We conducted time tradeoffs (score of 1 = perfect health and 0 = death) and probability tradeoffs with patients aged 51 to 78 y who had received EBRT for IRPC within the past 2 y. Of 40 patients, 20 had received 6 mo of ADT and 20 had declined. Utility assessments explored 4 ADT-related side effects: hot flashes, fatigue, loss of libido/erectile dysfunction, and weight gain. Results. The most commonly reported "worst" treatment-related complication of ADT was fatigue (50% in both cohorts) followed by reduced libido/erectile dysfunction (40% in both cohorts). The utilities for fatigue were mean = 0.71 and median = 0.92 and for reduced libido/erectile dysfunction were mean = 0.81 and median = 0.92. Utilities did not differ significantly between cohorts. Assuming a 6-mo course of ADT, men reported being willing to trade 3 mo of life expectancy to avoid fatigue due to ADT and 1.8 mo to avoid sexual side effects. Patients in the ADT cohort were willing to accept the side effects of ADT in exchange for a mean 8% absolute increase in survival, whereas patients in the no ADT cohort required a 16% increase (P < 0.001). Conclusions. When considering treatment with ADT, men with IRPC identified fatigue and sexual dysfunction as the most bothersome side effects. Patients who declined ADT expected a larger survival benefit than those who opted for treatment. Both groups expected a survival benefit exceeding that shown by recent trials, suggesting some men may be selecting treatments inconsistent with their preferences. Highlights: This study demonstrates that prostate cancer patients receiving radiation therapy are reluctant to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) most commonly due to anticipated fatigue and loss of libido/erectile dysfunction.Men who had received ADT reported they would require an average 8% absolute increase in survival to tolerate its side effects, whereas those who declined ADT would require an average 16% increase.Required thresholds are well above the estimated absolute survival benefit for ADT demonstrated in recent clinical trials, suggesting an unmet need for improved patient education regarding the risks and benefits of ADT.

Short-form adaptive measure of financial toxicity from the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) study: Derivation using modern psychometric techniques.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate advanced psychometric properties of the 15-item Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) measure of financial toxicity for cancer patients. METHODS: We surveyed 515 cancer patients in the greater Houston metropolitan area using ENRICh from March 2019 to March 2020. We conducted a series of factor analyses alongside parametric and non-parametric item response theory (IRT) assessments using Mokken analysis and the graded response model (GRM). We utilized parameters derived from the GRM to run a simulated computerized adaptive test (CAT) assessment. RESULTS: Among participants, mean age was 58.49 years and 278 (54%) were female. The initial round factor analysis results suggested a one-factor scale structure. Negligible levels of differential item functioning (DIF) were evident between eight items. Three items were removed due to local interdependence (Q3>+0.4). The original 11-point numerical rating scale did not function well, and a new 3-point scoring system was implemented. The final 12-item ENRICh had acceptable fit to the GRM (p<0.001; TLI = 0.94; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.09; RMSR = 0.06) as well as good scalability and dimensionality. We observed high correlation between CAT version scores and the 12-item measure (r = 0.98). During CAT, items 2 (money you owe) and 4 (stress level about finances) were most frequently administered, followed by items 1 (money in savings) and 5 (ability to pay bills). Scores from these four items alone were strongly correlated with that of the 12-item ENRICh (r = 0.96). CONCLUSION: These CAT and 4-item versions provide options for quick screening in clinical practice and low-burden assessment in research.

Smoking cessation services and shared decision-making practices among lung cancer screening facilities: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how screening facilities are meeting the requirements for the reimbursement of lung cancer screening from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including 1) the collection and submission of data to the CMS-approved registry (American College of Radiology [ACR] Lung Cancer Screening Registry), 2) the verification of a counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit having occurred as part of the written order for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, and 3) the offering of smoking cessation interventions. METHODS: The authors identified facilities in a southwestern state that were listed by either the ACR Lung Cancer Screening Registry or the GO2 Foundation Centers of Excellence. To select facilities, they used 2 purposive sampling approaches: maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling. They surveyed facilities from February to November 2019. RESULTS: There were 87 facilities contacted, and a total of 63 facilities representing 32 counties across Texas completed the survey. Nearly all facilities used Lung-RADS to classify nodules (92%; n = 58) and submitted data to a CMS-approved registry (92%; n = 57). Most facilities verified that the counseling and SDM visit had occurred (86%; n = 54). Although slightly more than half of the facilities reported always providing self-help cessation materials (68%; n = 42), similar or higher proportions of facilities reported that they never referred smokers to onsite cessation services (68%; n = 42) or quitlines (77%; n = 47), provided cessation counseling (81%; n = 50), or recommended medications (85%; n = 52). CONCLUSIONS: In general, screening facilities are meeting CMS requirements for screening, but they are struggling to offer smoking cessation interventions other than providing self-help materials.

Impact of the shared decision-making process on lung cancer screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Professional organizations recommend the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in supporting patients' decisions about lung cancer screening (LCS). The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the SDM process on patient knowledge about LCS, decisional conflict, intentions to adhere to screening recommendations, and its role in how the patient made the final decision. METHODS: This study surveyed patients screened for lung cancer within 12 months of the survey, recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the U.S. (May to July 2018). RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-four patients completed the survey (87.9% White, 52% male, and mean age of 64.81). Higher SDM process scores (which indicates a better SDM process reported by patients) were significantly associated with greater knowledge of LCS (b = 0.17 p < 0.01). Higher SDM process scores were associated with less decisional conflict about their screening choice (b = 0.45, p < 0.001), greater intentions to make the same decision again (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = [1.06-1.89]), and greater intentions to undergo LCS again (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = [1.08-1.62]). The SDM process score was not associated with patients' report of whether or not they shared the final decision with the healthcare provider (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = [0.85-1.35]). CONCLUSION(S): This study found that a better SDM process was associated with better affective-cognitive outcomes among patients screened for lung cancer.

Factors that influence clinicians' decisions to decrease active surveillance monitoring frequency or transition to watchful waiting for localised prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about clinicians' decision-making about decreasing active surveillance (AS) testing/converting patients to watchful waiting (WW), nor are there any guidelines. The objective of this study was to identify factors that clinicians consider when decreasing AS testing/converting to WW for men with prostate cancer. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative study. SETTING: All participants practiced in various institutions in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible clinicians had to provide clinical care for patients with prostate cancer in the USA and speak English. Clinicians could be either urologists or radiation oncologists. Of the 24 clinicians, 83% were urologists representing 11 states, 92% were men and 62% were white. METHODS: This qualitative study used data from semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to ensure geographical variation in the USA. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Framework analysis guided coding and identification of themes. Two researchers coded all transcripts independently, met to discuss and reached consensus. RESULTS: Interviews with clinicians demonstrated that testing or monitoring for AS or transitioning to WW is happening in practice, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Decisions to decrease AS were personalised and tailored to patients' health status. Life expectancy was the dominant factor that influenced decision, but clinicians were generally hesitant to specify an age when they would decrease AS or transition to WW. Fear that poor adherence could lead to missed progression and concerns about the medico-legal issue of not doing enough were cited as barriers to decreasing AS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that in certain situations, AS frequency is reduced or transitioned to WW, yet decisions appear to be inconsistent and there are no significant barriers. These findings could inform further areas to explore when drafting recommendations that consider patients' values and preferences when making decisions about decreasing AS/converting to WW.

Financial Hardship in Survivorship Care Delivery.

Cancer-related financial hardship is highly prevalent and affects individuals in the setting of cancer care delivery across the survivorship trajectory. Mitigating financial hardship requires multi-level solutions at the policy, payer, health-care system, provider, and individual patient levels. At the highest level, strategies for intervention include enacting policies to improve price transparency and expand insurance coverage. Also needed are implementing systematic screening and financial navigation in cancer care delivery; improving cost communication by provider care teams; developing patient-reported measures that incorporate the multiple, complex dimensions of financial hardship, as reflected in the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer tool; and advancing electronic medical record infrastructure to manage data on patient financial hardship. For individual patients, activating their social networks, community resources, and employers provides patient-level support resources to enhance coping. The proposed multi-level approach is needed to overcome financial hardship in the setting of high-quality, high-value cancer care delivery.

Implementation of Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening Among the Privately Insured Nonelderly.

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires a written order of shared decision making (SDM) visit in its coverage policy for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS). With screening eligibility starting at age 55, private insurance plans will likely adopt this coverage policy. This study examined the implementation of SDM in the context of LCS among the privately insured. Methods. We constructed two study cohorts from MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database 2016-2017: a LDCT cohort who received LDCT for LCS and an SDM cohort who had an LCS-related SDM visit. For the LDCT cohort, we examined the trend and factors associated with the receipt of SDM within 3 months prior to LDCT. For the SDM cohort, we studied the trend and factors associated with LDCT within 3 months after an SDM visit. Results. For privately insured adults aged <64, 93% (19,681/21,084) of the LDCT cohort did not have a billing claim indicating SDM, although the uptake of SDM increased from 3.1% in 1Q2016 to 8.2% in 4Q2017 (P < 0.0001). For the SDM cohort, 46% (948/2048) did not have a claim for an LDCT for lung cancer screening in the 3 months after the SDM visit; this percentage increased from 29.5% in 1Q2016 to 61.8% in 3Q2017 (P < 0.0001). Limitations. Findings cannot be generalized to other nonelderly adults without private insurance. Additionally, the rate of SDM identified from claims may be underreported. Conclusions. We found a growing but low uptake of SDM among privately insured individuals who underwent LDCT. The higher rate of LDCT in the SDM cohort than the rate reported in national studies emphasized the importance of patient awareness.

Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: How Well Are We "Sharing"?

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality, but it also carries a range of risks. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of engaging patients in their health care decisions and is a vital component of LCS. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the quality of SDM among patients recently assessed for LCS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of screened patients recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the United States. Self-reported surveys assessed patient demographics, values related to outcomes of LCS, knowledge, SDM components including receipt of educational materials, and decisional conflict. RESULTS: Recently screened patients (n = 266) possessed varied LCS knowledge, answering an average of 41.4% of questions correctly. Patients valued finding cancer early over concerns about harms. Patients indicated that LCS benefits were presented to them by a health care provider far more often than harms (68.3% vs 20.8%, respectively), and 30.7% reported they received educational materials about LCS during the screening process. One-third of patients had some decisional conflict (33.6%) related to their screening decisions, whereas most patients (86.6%) noted that they were involved in the screening decision as much as they wanted. In multivariate models, non-White race and having less education were related to lower knowledge scores. Non-White patients and former smokers were more likely to be conflicted about the screening decision. Most patients (n = 227 [85.3%]) indicated that a health care provider had discussed smoking cessation or abstinence with them. INTERPRETATION: Among recently screened patients, the quality of decision-making about LCS is highly variable. The low use of educational materials including decision aids and imbalance of conveying benefit vs risk information to patients is concerning. A structured approach using decision aids may assist with providing a balanced presentation of information and may improve the quality of SDM.

Smoking cessation and shared decision-making practices about lung cancer screening among primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: We describe primary care providers' current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS). METHODS: Family, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns. RESULTS: Of 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow-ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision-making about LCS, although only about one-third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow-up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision-making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.

Factors Associated With Obtaining Lung Cancer Screening Among Persons Who Smoke.

Background. Screening with low-dose computed tomography scans can reduce lung cancer deaths but uptake remains low. This study examines psychosocial factors associated with obtaining lung cancer screening (LCS) among individuals. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted with 13 state quitlines' clients. Participants who met age and smoking history criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 6 months. Only participants randomized to the intervention group (a patient decision aid) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression was performed to identify determinants of obtaining LCS 6 months after the intervention. Results. There were 204 participants included in this study. Regarding individual attitudes, high and moderate levels of concern about overdiagnosis were associated with a decreased likelihood of obtaining LCS compared with lower levels of concern (high levels of concern, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.65; moderate levels of concern, OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.53). In contrast, higher levels of anticipated regret about not obtaining LCS and later being diagnosed with lung cancer were associated with an increased likelihood of being screened compared with lower levels of anticipated regret (OR 5.59, 95% CI 1.72-18.10). Other potential harms related to LCS were not significant. Limitations. Follow-up may not have been long enough for all individuals who wished to be screened to complete the scan. Additionally, participants may have been more health motivated due to recruitment via tobacco quitlines. Conclusions. Anticipated regret about not obtaining screening is associated with screening behavior, whereas concern about overdiagnosis is associated with decreased likelihood of LCS. Implications. Decision support research may benefit from further examining anticipated regret in screening decisions. Additional training and information may be helpful to address concerns regarding overdiagnosis.