A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants.

INTRODUCTION: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Cancer Society recently released lung screening guidelines that include smoking cessation counseling for smokers undergoing screening. Previous work indicates that smoking behaviors and risk perceptions of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants were relatively unchanged. We explored American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN)/NLST former and current smokers' risk perceptions specifically to (a) determine whether lung screening is a cue for behavior change, (b) elucidate risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, and (c) explore postscreening behavioral intentions and changes. METHODS: A random sample of 35 participants from 4 ACRIN sites were qualitatively interviewed 1-2 years postscreen. We used a structured interview guide based on Health Belief Model and Self-Regulation Model constructs. Content analyses were conducted with NVivo 8. RESULTS: Most participants endorsed high-risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, but heightened concern about these risks did not appear to motivate participants to seek screening. Risk perceptions were mostly attributed to participants' heavy smoking histories; former smokers expressed greatly reduced risk. Lung cancer and smoking-related diseases were perceived as very severe although participants endorsed low worry. Current smokers had low confidence in their ability to quit, and none reported quitting following their initial screen. CONCLUSIONS: Lung screening did not appear to be a behavior change cue to action, and high-risk perceptions did not translate into quitting behaviors. Cognitive and emotional dissonance and avoidance strategies may deter engagement in smoking behavior change. Smoking cessation and prevention interventions during lung screening should explore risk perceptions, emotions, and quit confidence.

Risk perceptions among participants undergoing lung cancer screening: baseline results from the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening could present a "teachable moment" for promoting smoking cessation and relapse prevention. Understanding the risk perceptions of older individuals who undergo screening will guide these efforts. PURPOSE: This paper examines National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants' perceptions of risk for lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases. We investigated (1) whether risk perceptions of lung cancer screening participants differed between current and former smokers and (2) which factors (sociodemographic, smoking and medical history, cognitive, emotional, and knowledge) were associated with these risk perceptions. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data collected from 630 NLST participants prior to their initial screen. Participants were older (55-74 years), heavy (minimum 30 pack years) current or former smokers. A ten-item risk perception measure was developed to assess perceived lifetime risk of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases. RESULTS: The risk perception measure had excellent internal consistency (alpha = 0.93). Former smokers had lower risk perceptions compared to current smokers. Factors independently associated with high risk perceptions among current smokers included having a personal history of a smoking-related disease, higher lifetime maximum number of cigarettes smoked daily, having lived with a smoker, high worry, high perceived severity of lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, and accurate knowledge of tenfold increased risk of lung cancer for a one pack per day smoker. Factors independently associated with high risk perceptions among former smokers included being White, past history of smoking within 30 min of waking, high worry, and accurate knowledge of tenfold increased risk of lung cancer for a one pack per day smoker. CONCLUSIONS: Using a comprehensive risk perception measurement, we found that current and former smokers held different risk perceptions. Former and current smokers' smoking and medical history, race, emotional concerns, behavior change cognitions, and knowledge should be considered during a prescreening risk communication session. We highlight the theoretical and risk communication implications for former and current smokers undergoing lung cancer screening.

Screening chest radiography: results from a Greek cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Public health authorities worldwide discourage the use of chest radiography as a screening modality, as the diagnostic performance of chest radiography does not justify its application for screening and may even be harmful, since people with false positive results may experience anxiety and concern. Despite the accumulated evidence, various reports suggest that primary care physicians throughout the world still prescribe chest radiography for screening. We therefore set out to index the use of chest radiography for screening purposes among the healthy adult population and to analyze its relationship with possible trigger factors. METHODS: The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. Five thousand four hundred and ninety-nine healthy adults, coming from 26 Greek provinces were surveyed for screening practice habits in the nationwide anticancer study. Data were obtained for the use of screening chest radiography. Impact of age, gender, tobacco exposure, family history positive for malignancies and professional-risk for lung diseases was further analyzed. RESULTS: we found that 20% (n = 1099) of the surveyed individuals underwent chest radiography for screening purposes for at least one time during the previous three years. Among those, 24% do so with a frequency equal or higher than once yearly, and 48% with a frequency equal or higher than every three years. Screening for chest radiography was more commonly adopted among males (OR 1.130, 95% CI 0.988-1.292), pensioners (OR 1.319, CI 1.093-1.593) and individuals with a positive family history for lung cancer (OR 1.251, CI 0.988-1.583). Multivariate analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: Despite formal recommendations, chest radiography for screening purposes was a common practice among the analyzed sample of Greek adults. This practice is of questionable value since the positive predictive value of chest radiography is low. The implementation of even a relatively inexpensive imaging study on a national scale would greatly burden health economics and the workload of radiology departments.

Examining the effects of false positive lung cancer screening results on subsequent lung cancer screening adherence.

OBJECTIVE: The study goal was to examine the effects of an initial false positive chest X-ray screening result on subsequent lung cancer screening adherence. METHODS: Adherence rates among 4705 individuals in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial at the Henry Ford Health System site with an abnormal/suspicious chest X-ray screening result in the first study year that was subsequently determined to be noncancerous (false positive result, n = 1137 exams) were compared with adherence rates among individuals with an initial negative chest X-ray screening result (n = 3568 exams). RESULTS: Univariate results showed a >50% increase in subsequent nonadherence among individuals with false positive screening results compared with those with negative screening results (17.2% versus 10.3% nonadherence rate, respectively; P < 0.001). Multivariable results showed that statistically significant predictors of nonadherence were false positive cases with current smoking status (P < 0.001) and false positive cases with past smoking status (P < 0.001). Additional predictors of subsequent nonadherence were being African-American (P < 0.01), being female (P < 0.001), and having a high school education or less (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the impact of previous screening results, smoking status, race, gender, and education on subsequent screening adherence needs to be weighed carefully, particularly for smokers, an at-risk group, when conducting lung cancer screening intervention studies and perhaps should be considered in clinical practice as well.