Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Community-Based Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Lisa Carter-Harris, Robert Skipworth Comer, James E Slaven Ii, Patrick O Monahan, Emilee Vode, Nasser H Hanna, DuyKhanh Pham Ceppa, Susan M Rawl, Lisa Carter-Harris, Robert Skipworth Comer, James E Slaven Ii, Patrick O Monahan, Emilee Vode, Nasser H Hanna, DuyKhanh Pham Ceppa, Susan M Rawl

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed.

Objective: The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.

Methods: A pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk-a web-based tailored computer program-while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician.

Results: Knowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions.

Conclusions: LungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer.

International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694.

Keywords: informed decision-making; lung cancer screening; patient decision aid; patient education; shared decision-making.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Lisa Carter-Harris, Robert Skipworth Comer, James E Slaven II, Patrick O Monahan, Emilee Vode, Nasser H Hanna, DuyKhanh Pham Ceppa, Susan M Rawl. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 03.11.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant recruitment flowchart.

References

    1. Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Mar 4;160(5):330–8. doi: 10.7326/M13-2771.
    1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395–409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873.
    1. Decision memo for screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) 2015. [2020-02-15]. .
    1. Carter-Harris L, Ceppa DP, Hanna N, Rawl SM. Lung cancer screening: what do long-term smokers know and believe? Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):59–68. doi: 10.1111/hex.12433.
    1. Carter-Harris L, Tan ASL, Salloum RG, Young-Wolff KC. Patient-provider discussions about lung cancer screening pre- and post-guidelines: Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Nov;99(11):1772–1777. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.014.
    1. Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand M, Sivell S, Stacey D, O'Connor A, Volk RJ, Edwards A, Bennett C, Pignone M, Thomson R, Elwyn G. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified delphi consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2014 Aug;34(6):699–710. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13501721.
    1. Carter-Harris L, Comer RS, Goyal A, Vode EC, Hanna N, Ceppa D, Rawl SM. Development and usability testing of a computer-tailored decision support tool for lung cancer screening: study protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Nov 16;6(11):e225. doi: 10.2196/resprot.8694.
    1. Frandsen M, Walters J, Ferguson SG. Exploring the viability of using online social media advertising as a recruitment method for smoking cessation clinical trials. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014 Feb;16(2):247–51. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt157.
    1. Carter-Harris L, Bartlett ER, Warrick A, Rawl S. Beyond traditional newspaper advertisement: leveraging facebook-targeted advertisement to recruit long-term smokers for research. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e117. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5502.
    1. Carter-Harris L, Davis LL, Rawl SM. Lung cancer screening participation: developing a conceptual model to guide research. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2016 Nov 01;30(4):333–352. doi: 10.1891/1541-6577.30.4.333.
    1. Carter-Harris L, Slaven JE, Monohan P, Rawl SM. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales. Cancer Nurs. 2017;40(3):237–244. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000386.
    1. Weinstein N, Sandman P, Blalock S. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. The precaution adoption process model; pp. 123–147.
    1. Carter-Harris L, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ, Roth JA, Buist DSM. A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening. Fam Pract. 2017 Dec 01;34(2):239–244. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw146.
    1. Dharod A, Bellinger C, Foley K, Case LD, Miller D. The reach and feasibility of an interactive lung cancer screening decision aid delivered by patient portal. Appl Clin Inform. 2019 Jan;10(1):19–27. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676807.
    1. Enders C. Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2010.
    1. Lau YK, Caverly TJ, Cherng ST, Cao P, West M, Arenberg D, Meza R. Development and validation of a personalized, web-based decision aid for lung cancer screening using mixed methods: a study protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014 Dec 19;3(4):e78. doi: 10.2196/resprot.4039.
    1. Lung cancer screening decision tool. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. [2020-02-15]. .
    1. Screening for lung cancer pamphlet. * [2020-02-15]. .
    1. Chen Y, Marcus MW, Niaz A, Duffy SW, Field JK. MyLungRisk: a user-friendly, web-based calculator for risk assessment of lung cancer based on the validated Liverpool Lung Project risk prediction model. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education. 2014 Feb 25;52(3):144–152. doi: 10.1080/14635240.2014.888814.
    1. Volk RJ, Linder SK, Leal VB, Rabius V, Cinciripini PM, Kamath GR, Munden RF, Bevers TB. Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. Prev Med. 2014 May;62:60–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.006.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel