Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making. Objective: To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report. Results: Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

Randomized trial of a patient-centered decision aid for promoting informed decisions about lung cancer screening: Implementation of a PCORI study protocol and lessons learned.

PURPOSE: We describe the methods, stakeholder engagement, and lessons learned from a study comparing a video decision aid to standard educational materials on lung cancer screening decisions. METHODS: The study followed rigorous methodology standards from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The importance of patient-centeredness and patient/stakeholder engagement are reflected across the study's conceptualization, execution, interpretation, and dissemination efforts. Advisory groups of current and former smokers, quitline service providers, clinicians, and patient advocates were formed for the project. The study used both retrospective and prospective recruitment strategies. Randomization of patients occurred within state-based quitlines, with aggressive tracking of participants. We collected data at baseline and 1-week, 3-month and 6-months after receiving the intervention. The patient-centered outcomes included whether patients' receiving the decision aid a) felt better prepared to make a decision, b) felt more informed about the screening decision, c) had more clarity on their values regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening, and d) were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than patients receiving the standard education materials. Exploratory outcomes included making an appointment with a health care provider to discuss screening, scheduling and completing lung cancer screening. RESULTS: We have enrolled and randomized 516 quitline patients and learned many lessons about executing the trial based on significant patient and stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting patient-centered outcomes research requires new ways of thinking and continuously checking-in with patients/stakeholders. The engagement of quitline service providers and patient advisors has been key to successful recruitment and dissemination planning. PCORI- CER-1306-03385 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT ID: NCT02286713.