Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Research Articles

Barriers and Facilitators Impacting Lung Cancer Screening Uptake Among Black Veterans: A Qualitative Study.

Racial disparities in lung cancer screening (LCS) are well established. Black Veterans are among those at the highest risk for developing lung cancer but are less likely to complete LCS. We sought to identify barriers and facilitators to LCS uptake among Black Veterans. A qualitative study using semistructured interviews was conducted with 32 Black Veterans to assess for barriers, facilitators, and contextual factors for LCS and strategies to improve screening. Veterans were purposively sampled by age, sex, and LCS participation status (ie, patients who received a low-dose CT [LDCT], patients who contacted the screening program but did not receive an LDCT, and patients who did not connect with the screening program nor receive an LDCT). Interview guides were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Health Belief Model. Data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Barriers of LCS uptake among Black Veterans include self-reported low LCS knowledge and poor memory, attention, and decision processes associated with the centralized LCS process. Facilitators of LCS uptake among Black Veterans include social/professional role; identity and social influences; perceived susceptibility, threat, and consequences due to smoking status and military or occupational exposures; emotion, behavioral regulation, and intentions; and high trust in providers. Environmental context and resources (eg, transportation) and race and racism serve as contextual factors that did not emerge as having a major impact on LCS uptake. Strategies to improve LCS uptake included increased social messaging surrounding LCS, various forms of information dissemination, LCS reminders, balanced and repeated shared decision-making discussions, and streamlined referrals. We identified addressable barriers and facilitators for LCS uptake among Black Veterans that can help focus efforts to improve disparities in screening. Future studies should explore provider perspectives and test interventions to improve equity in LCS.

Promoting Lung Cancer Screen Decision-Making and Early Detection Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Promoting lung cancer screening (LCS) is complex. Previous studies have overlooked that LCS behaviors are stage based and thus did not identify the characteristics of LCS interventions at different screening stages. The aims of this study were to explore the characteristics and efficacy of interventions in promoting LCS decision making and behaviors and to evaluate these interventions. We conducted a study search from the inception of each bibliographic database to April 8, 2023. The precaution adoption process model was used to synthesize and classify the evidence. The RE-AIM framework was used to evaluate the effectiveness of LCS programs. Heterogeneity tests and meta-analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4 software. We included 31 studies that covered 4 LCS topics: knowledge of lung cancer, knowledge of LCS, value clarification exercises, and LCS supportive resources. Patient decision aids outperformed educational materials in improving knowledge and decision outcomes with a significant reduction in decision conflict (standardized mean difference, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, -1.15 to -0.47; P < .001). Completion rates of LCS ranged from 3.6% to 98.8%. Interventions that included screening resources outperformed interventions that used patient decision aids alone in improving LCS completion. The proportions of reported RE-AIM indicators were highest for reach (69.59%), followed by adoption (43.87%), effectiveness (36.13%), implementation (33.33%), and maintenance (9.68%). Evidence from 31 studies identified intervention characteristics and effectiveness of LCS interventions based on different stages of decision making. It is crucial to develop targeted and systematic interventions based on the characteristics of each stage of LCS to maximize intervention effectiveness and reduce the burden of lung cancer.

A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol

BackgroundIn real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence. MethodsThe Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50–78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9–15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders. DiscussionResults will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings.Registration: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443).

Tobacco treatment specialists’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening: Potential piece of the puzzle for increasing lung cancer screening awareness

ObjectivesLess than 5% of eligible U.S. individuals undergo lung cancer screening (LCS). A significant barrier is lack of awareness; more effective outreach and education strategies are needed to achieve greater population LCS uptake. Tobacco Treatment Specialists (TTSs) are an untapped resource to assist and understanding TTS knowledge and perspectives about LCS and readiness and capacity to assist is a critical first step. MethodsA sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design was conducted to understand LCS knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices of TTSs. A cross-sectional survey (N = 147) was conducted supplemented with 3 focus groups (N = 12). ResultsTTSs lacked good working knowledge about LCS in general and screening guidelines, but think it is important for their patient population and open to routinely assessing and adding this educational component into their current workflow. ConclusionsTobacco treatment offers a unique venue for LCS awareness and is a setting where there are experienced specialists trained in tobacco use assessment and treatment. Results highlight the unmet training needs required to facilitate integration of tobacco treatment and LCS. Practice ImplicationsTTSs are an expanding healthcare workforce. There is a strong need for current TTSs to receive additional training in the benefits of LCS.

Lung Cancer Screening Among Mammography Patients: Knowledge, Eligibility, Participation, and Interest.

To determine lung cancer screening eligibility, knowledge, and interest and to quantify the effect of the expanded 2021 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria among women presenting for screening mammography, a group with demonstrable interest in cancer screening. A single-page survey was distributed to patients presenting for screening mammography, from January-March 2020 and June 2020-January 2021, at 2 academic medical centers on the East and West Coasts. The population served by the East Coast institution has greater poverty, greater ethnic/racial diversity, and lower education levels. Survey questions included age, smoking history, lung cancer screening knowledge, participation, and interest. Lung cancer screening eligibility was determined for both 2013 and 2021 USPSTF guidelines. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and data were compared between groups using the Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney nonparametric test, and the 2-sample t test. 5512 surveys were completed; 33% (1824) of women reported a history of smoking-30% (1656) former smokers and 3% (156) current smokers. Among women with a smoking history, 7% (127/1824) were eligible for lung cancer screening using 2013% and 11% (207/1824) using the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Interest in lung cancer screening was high (73%; 151/207) among eligible women using 2021 USPSTF criteria, but only 42% (87/207) had heard of lung cancer screening and only 28% (57/207) had received prior LDCT screening. Eligible screening mammography patients reported high levels of interest in lung cancer screening but low levels of knowledge and participation. Linking mammography and LDCT appointments may improve lung cancer screening participation.

Evaluation of unimodal and multimodal information in health communication on GGO-related lung cancer screening: An eye-tracking study.

To find out a better propaganda and education plan for the popularization of the ground-glass opacities-related (GGO-related) lung cancer screening. The control group took a lung cancer screening knowledge test directly before receiving the health education. By contrast, the experimental group took the same knowledge test after receiving health education. This study designed unimodal and multimodal materials about GGO-related lung cancer. The text and graph were considered unimodal information, while the video was multimodal information. According to the different information forms they were exposed to, the experimental group was further divided into text, graphic, and video groups. An eye-tracking system was performed to record eye-tracking data synchronously. Compared with the control group, the knowledge test scores of each experimental group were remarkably improved. Furthermore, the graphic group had a significantly higher correct rate on the No. 7 question, while the video group had the lowest. In terms of saccades, the video group had significantly higher speed and amplitude of saccades than the other two groups. In terms of fixation, the interval duration, total duration of whole fixations, and a number of whole fixations of the graphic group were significantly lower than those of the other two groups, while the video group had the highest values for these variables. It was on the unimodal information, such as text and graphics, that people can spend less time and cost to achieve effective acquisition of GGO-related lung cancer screening knowledge.

Using Community Health Advisors to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Awareness in the Black Belt: a Pilot Study.

Disease stage at the time of diagnosis is the most important determinant of prognosis for lung cancer. Despite demonstrated effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) in reducing lung cancer mortality, early detection continues to elude populations with the highest risk for lung cancer death. Consistent with the national rate, current screening rate in Alabama is dismal at 4.2%. While public awareness of LCS may be a likely cause, there are no studies that have thoroughly evaluated current knowledge of LCS within the Deep South. Therefore, we measured LCS knowledge before and after receiving education delivered by community health advisors (CHAs) among high-risk individuals living in medically underserved communities of Alabama and to determine impact of psychological, demographic, health status, and cognitive factors on rate of lung cancer screening participation. Participants were recruited from one urban county and six rural Black Belt counties (characterized by poverty, rurality, unemployment, low educational attainment, and disproportionate lack of access to health services). One hundred individuals (i) aged between 55 and 80years; (ii) currently smoke or have quit within the past 15years; and (iii) have at least a total of 30-pack-year smoking history were recruited. Knowledge scores to assess lung cancer knowledge were calculated. Paired t-test was used to assess pre- and post-knowledge score improvement. Screening for lung cancer was modeled as a function of predisposed factors (age, gender, insurance, education, fatalism, smoking status, and history of family lung cancer). Average age was 62.94 (SD = 6.28), mostly female (54%); mostly current smokers (53%). Most participants (80.85%) reported no family history of cancer. Fatalism was low, with a majority of the participants disagreeing that a cancer diagnosis is pre-destined (67.7%) and that there are no treatments for lung cancer (88.66%). Overall, lung cancer knowledge increased significantly from baseline of 4.64 (SD = 2.37) to 7.61 (SD = 2.26). Of the 100 participants, 23 underwent screening due to lack of access to primary care providers and reluctance of PCPs to provide referral to LCS. Sixty-five percent of those who were screened reported no family history of lung cancer. Regression analysis revealed no significant association between risk factors and the decision to get screened by participants. Our study demonstrates that while CHA delivered education initiatives increases lung cancer screening knowledge, there are significant structural barriers that prohibit effective utilization of LCS which needs to be addressed.

Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge in Four Internal Medicine Programs.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Low density CT (LDCT) has been shown to reduce mortality in high-risk populations. Recognizing and mitigating gaps in knowledge in early medical training could result in increased utilization of screening CT in high risk-populations. An electronic survey was conducted among Internal Medicine (IM) residents at 4 academic programs in the Midwestern United States. A survey was distributed to evaluate knowledge about high-risk populations, mortality benefits, and a comparison in mortality benefits between LDCT and other screening modalities using number needed to screen (NNS). Results: There was a 46.6% (166/360) response rate. Residents correctly answered an average of 2.9/7 (43.1%) questions. PGY-1 (post-graduate year) and PGY-2 residents performed better than PGY-3 (P = .022). Only 1/3 rd of all respondents correctly identified the population needed to be screened. Over 80% of residents thought screening with LDCT had a cancer-specific mortality benefit but were evenly split (except Program 2 residents), on recognizing an all-cause mortality benefit with LDCT, (P = .016). Only 7.7% thought women benefited the most from LDCT. Self-assess and attained knowledge were similar among programs. LDCT is a noninvasive intervention with a substantial mortality reduction, especially in states with high rates of smoking, and is widely covered by insurers. With average knowledge score less than 50%, this study shows there is a substantial need to increase the knowledge of LCS in IM residency programs.

Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Patterns Among Primary and Pulmonary Care Clinicians.

Lung cancer screening has the potential to identify lung cancer at an early stage when more treatment options exist. However, discussions with and referrals of screening-eligible patients remain unacceptably low. We need to better understand clinician knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns to identify strategies to improve lung cancer screening uptake. Prior studies have focused on understanding these factors from physicians only. Nevertheless, many patients receive primary care from nurse practitioners and physician assistants where prevention and early detection conversations are most likely to occur. Therefore, we must engage the full range of clinicians treating screening-eligible patients. The aim of this study was to describe attitudes, beliefs and referral practice patterns, lung cancer screening knowledge, and concordance with lung cancer screening guidelines among nurse practitioners, physicians, and physician assistants in the United States. A descriptive, cross-sectional study was performed using survey methodology with clinical vignettes to examine clinician factors and concordance with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines. Participants scored low on attitudes toward shared decision-making, high on the importance of shared decision-making in lung cancer screening, and low on barriers to lung cancer screening referral. In addition, midrange scores on empathy toward patients with smoking history were noted. Lung cancer screening knowledge was low regardless of clinician specialty; the most endorsed response when presented with a hypothetical patient was to refer for lung cancer screening using a chest X-ray. Findings demonstrate that most clinicians are nonconcordant with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, erroneously believing a chest X-ray is appropriate for lung cancer screening. Clinicians must follow evidence-based practice guidelines, highlighting the need for targeted continuing education about lung cancer screening for clinicians who treat screening-eligible patients.

EP01.02-004 Education Messages and Strategies About Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

International lung cancer screening trials, using low-dose computed tomography, have demonstrated clinical effectiveness in reducing lung cancer mortality. This systematic review aims to synthesise key messages and strategies that might be successful in increasing awareness and knowledge of lung cancer screening, and ultimately uptake of screening.

Adapting Community Educational Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparing the Feasibility and Efficacy of a Lung Cancer Screening Educational Intervention by Mode of Delivery.

Few eligible patients receive lung cancer screening. We developed the Lung AIR (awareness, information, and resources) intervention to increase community education regarding lung cancer screening. The intervention was designed as an in-person group intervention; however, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated adapting the mode of delivery. In this study we examined intervention feasibility and efficacy overall and by mode of delivery (in-person group vs. one-on-one phone) to understand the impact of adapting community outreach and engagement strategies. Feasibility was examined through participant demographics. Efficacy was measured through pre/post knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about lung cancer screening, and intention to complete screening. We reached N = 292 participants. Forty percent had a household income below $35,000, 58% had a high school degree or less, 40% were Hispanic, 57% were Black, and 84% reported current or past smoking. One-on-one phone sessions reached participants who were older, had lower incomes, more current smoking, smoked for more years, more cigarettes per day, lower pre-intervention lung cancer screening knowledge, and higher pre-intervention fear and worry. Overall pre/post test scores show significant increases in knowledge, salience, and coherence, and reduced fear and worry. Participants in the one-on-one phone sessions had significantly higher increases in salience and coherence and intention to complete screening compared to participants in the in-person group sessions. The Lung AIR intervention is a feasible and effective community-based educational intervention for lung cancer screening. Findings point to differences in reach and efficacy of the community-based intervention by mode of delivery.

Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge and Perceived Barriers Among Physicians in the United States

IntroductionLung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and has historically been detected late in its course. Low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality by 20% and is currently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. However, compared with other cancer screening modalities, LDCT utilization remains low. This study surveyed office-based primary care physicians across the United States to better understand LDCT utilization. MethodsA total of 1500 family and internal medicine physicians selected from the American Medical Association’s physician master file were surveyed between April and July 2019 regarding LDCT practices, eligibility, clinical scenarios, and perceived barriers. ResultsThe American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate 3 was 59% (652 respondents); 599 completed supplemental questions regarding lung cancer screening. A total of 88% of respondents discussed LDCT in the previous year, and 78% had ordered at least one LDCT. Most (59%) knew the tobacco exposure criteria for LDCT and correctly identified appropriate clinical scenarios (49%–86% responded correctly). Less than half of respondents correctly identified the age eligibility criteria (44%–45% responded correctly). In general, male physicians, those who graduated after 1990, and family medicine physicians were more likely to report accurate knowledge regarding LDCT eligibility. The top perceived barriers to LDCT were cost to the patient (48% identified as a major barrier), insurance not covering screening (46% major), and patients being unaware of lung cancer screening (40% major). ConclusionKnowledge and practices about lung cancer screening are improving, though remain suboptimal. The most common barriers remain cost or insurance-based and suggest the need for a systems-based response to increase awareness and reduce the underutilization of LDCT.

The development of a decision aid to support Hodgkin lymphoma survivors considering lung cancer screening

BackgroundDecisions aids (DA) can support patients to make informed decisions about screening tests. This study describes the development and initial evaluation of a lung cancer screening (LCS) DA targeted towards survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).MethodsA prototype decision aid booklet was developed and subsequently reviewed by a steering group who provided feedback. Revisions were made to produce the DA tested in this study. HL survivors were recruited to an online survey and/or focus groups. Lymphoma practitioners were invited to an interview study. In the online survey, decisional conflict scales and knowledge scales were completed before and after accessing the DA. The focus groups and interviews explored acceptability and comprehensibility and the decisional needs of stakeholders. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded. The framework method was used to analyse qualitative data.Results38 HL survivors completed the online survey. Following exposure to the DA, knowledge of LCS and risk factors and decisional conflict scores (total score and subscale scores) improved significantly. 11 HL survivors took part in two focus groups (n = 5 and n = 6) and 11 practitioners were interviewed. Focus group and interview results: The language, format and length were considered acceptable. Both groups felt the DA was balanced and presented a choice. Icon arrays were felt to aid comprehension of absolute risk values and for some survivors, they reduced affective risk perceptions. Among survivors, the impact of radiation risk on decision making varied according to gender and screening interval, whilst practitioners did not anticipate it to be a major concern for patients. Both groups expressed that a screening offer could mitigate anxiety about lung cancer risk. As anticipated by practitioners, survivors expressed a desire to seek advice from their clinical team. Practitioners thought the DA would meet their informational needs regarding LCS when supporting survivors.ConclusionsThe DA is considered acceptable by HL survivors and practitioners. The DA reduces decisional conflict and improves knowledge in HL survivors, suggesting that it would support HL survivors to make informed decisions when considering LCS in a future clinical trial.

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

BackgroundProfessional 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.MethodsThis 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).ResultsTwo 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.

Patient Identification of Lung Cancer Screening Follow-Up Recommendations and the Association with Adherence.

Rationale: Adherence to follow-up lung cancer screening (LCS) in real-world settings is suboptimal. Patient understanding of screening results and anticipated follow-up may be crucial to adherence. Objectives: To determine patient factors associated with identification of follow-up recommendations as a measure of patient understanding of screening results after LCS, and to determine whether misidentification of follow-up is associated with lower adherence to recommendations. Methods: We performed a prospective study of patients in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS registry who underwent an initial LCS examination between June 2017 and September 2019. We mailed potential participants a survey after the initial LCS examination, with additional data abstracted from the electronic health record and LCS registry. Participants were asked to identify the timing and next step for their follow-up, with answers corresponding to the lung imaging reporting and data system (Lung-RADS) recommendations. We examined associations between incorrect identification of recommended follow-up and patient-level characteristics, self-perceived benefit/harm of LCS, LCS knowledge, Lung-RADS score, and patient-reported method of LCS results communication (letter, telephone, or in-person). We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations with incorrect identification of recommendations and assessed incorrect identification of recommendations as a potential mechanism for poor adherence in a separate regression model. Results: One hundred eighty-eight participants completed the survey (response rate 44%); 47% misidentified their follow-up recommendation. Those with Lung-RADS scores ⩾3 had higher odds of incorrectly identifying follow-up recommendations than those with scores <3, as did those with lower educational attainment. However, there was no significant association between incorrect identification of follow-up and ultimate adherence to follow-up. Conclusions: Understanding of LCS follow-up appears to be poor, especially among those with lower education levels and positive findings. Among survey responders, incorrect identification of follow-up was not associated with poor adherence, suggesting that other factors, such as provider interventions, may be driving adherence behavior. These results can inform efforts to target improved patient education regarding follow-up for LCS.

Using community health advisors to increase lung cancer screening awareness in the Black Belt: A pilot study.

117 Background: Disease stage at the time of diagnosis is the most important determinant of prognosis for lung cancer. Despite demonstrated effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) in reducing lung cancer mortality, early detection continues to elude populations with the highest risk for lung cancer death. Consistent with the national rate, current screening rate in Alabama is dismal at 4.2%. While public awareness of LCS may be a likely cause there are no studies that have thoroughly evaluated current knowledge of LCS within the Deep South. Therefore, we measured (LCS) knowledge before and after receiving education delivered by Community Health Advisors (CHAs) among high-risk individuals living in medically-underserved communities of Alabama and to determine impact of psychological, demographic, health status and cognitive factors on rate of lung cancer screening participation. Methods: Participants were recruited from one urban county and six rural Black Belt counties (characterized by poverty, rurality, unemployment, low educational attainment and disproportionate lack of access to health services).100 individuals (i) aged between 55 to 80 years (ii) Currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. (iii) Have at least a total of 30-pack-year smoking history were recruited. Knowledge scores to assess lung cancer knowledge were calculated. Paired t-test was used to assess pre and post knowledge score improvement. Screening for lung cancer was modeled as a function of predisposed factors (age, gender, insurance, education, fatalism, smoking status, and history of family lung cancer). Results: Average age was 62.94(SD = 6.28), mostly female (54%); mostly current smokers (53% ). Most participants (80.85%) reported no family history of cancer. Fatalism was low, with a majority of the participants disagreeing that a cancer diagnosis is pre-destined (67.7%) and that there are no treatments for lung cancer (88.66%). Overall, lung cancer knowledge increased significantly from baseline of 4.64(SD = 2.37) to 7.61(SD = 2.26). Of the 100 participants, only 23 underwent screening due to lack of access to primary care providers and reluctance of PCPs to provide referral to LCS. 65% of those who were screened reported family history of lung cancer. Regression analysis revealed no significant association between risk factors and the decision to get screened by participants. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that while CHA delivered education initiatives increases lung cancer screening knowledge, there are significant structural barriers that prohibit effective utilization of LCS which needs to be addressed.

Imaging Administrators: The Overlooked Barrier to Lung Cancer Screening Implementation

Imaging Administrators: The Overlooked Barrier to Lung Cancer Screening Implementation

Abstract 2553: Using a “train-the-trainer” approach with urban and rural minority community health workers to implement the cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education (c-CARE) Project

Abstract Introduction: Community health workers (CHW) are often a key component to effective implementation of health promotion interventions; training on intervention delivery and self-efficacy enhances CHW effectiveness. The cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education (c-CARE) project utilized a train-the-trainer approach to equip CHWs to teach the four-week c-CARE lung cancer module. Project objectives included providing and facilitating: 1) education on risks of lung cancer, 2) low-dose CT (LCDT) screening for eligible participants, 3) smoking cessation, and 4) training CHWs to deliver the educational intervention and thus promote sustainability. Methods: Lay CHWs (n=63, 54 urban, 9 rural, 92% female, 56% having ≥Bachelors degree, 79% healthcare providers) were selected from 16 historically African American (AA) churches (n = 9 urban, 3 rural), Federally-Qualified Health centers (n=3) and one community center, all in Georgia or South Carolina. CHW inclusion criteria included pastor recommendation from the churches' healthcare ministry (primarily nurses and other allied health professionals) or community clinic workers who were public health practitioners, nurses, and paraprofessionals. CHWs participated in a 2-day implementation training. Training topics included: their role as a c-CARE facilitator, knowledge of cancer risk factors and lung cancer screening, and using the c-CARE materials to teach the sessions. Pre and post surveys assessed knowledge, satisfaction with the training, and self-efficacy regarding teaching the content. Responses were summarized; all significance tests were two-tailed using a significance level of 0.05. Result: Improvement in each of the six items was strongly significant (p &amp;lt; 0.001), with a mean improvement of at least 2 points on the 0-10 scale in: 1) understanding of their roles as c-CARE facilitators, 2) knowledge of cancer risk factors, 3) knowledge of lung cancer screening, 4) confidence in conducting a c-CARE group, 5) confidence in their abilities to implement a policy change, and 6) confidence in using c-CARE materials to teach participants. Participants also reported satisfaction with the c-CARE training they received. There were no significant differences between urban and rural CHW participants. CHWs conducted 64 sessions for 586 participants as a part of the c-CARE project. Discussion: Use of lay CHWs to deliver culturally competent cancer education and screening navigation was an important component of the c-CARE project. Increases in knowledge regarding cancer risk factors, screening requirements, and self-efficacy in leading the sessions were reported by the CHWs. Use of local lay CHWs ensures sustainability, positively affecting community knowledge, attitude and beliefs regarding lung cancer, prevention, and screening behaviors. Citation Format: Marlo M. Vernon, Ghadeer Albashir, Samantha J. Sojourner, Justin X. Moore, Stephen W. Looney, Martha S. Tingen. Using a “train-the-trainer” approach with urban and rural minority community health workers to implement the cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education (c-CARE) Project [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 2553.

What is the effect of a decision aid on knowledge, values and preferences for lung cancer screening? An online pre–post study

ObjectiveTo examine if a decision aid improves knowledge of lung cancer screening benefits and harms and which benefits and harms are most valued.DesignPre–post study.SettingOnline.Participants219 current or former (quit within the...

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

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. What is the quality of SDM among patients recently assessed for LCS? 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. 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%vs20.8%, 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. 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 vsrisk 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.