Cargando…

Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals’...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ruparel, Mamta, Quaife, Samantha, Baldwin, David, Waller, Jo, Janes, Samuel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6890387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31803474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000448
_version_ 1783475603326894080
author Ruparel, Mamta
Quaife, Samantha
Baldwin, David
Waller, Jo
Janes, Samuel
author_facet Ruparel, Mamta
Quaife, Samantha
Baldwin, David
Waller, Jo
Janes, Samuel
author_sort Ruparel, Mamta
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals’ specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Fatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the ‘right’ to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while false-positive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6890387
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68903872019-12-04 Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study Ruparel, Mamta Quaife, Samantha Baldwin, David Waller, Jo Janes, Samuel BMJ Open Respir Res Lung Cancer INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals’ specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Fatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the ‘right’ to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while false-positive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6890387/ /pubmed/31803474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000448 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Lung Cancer
Ruparel, Mamta
Quaife, Samantha
Baldwin, David
Waller, Jo
Janes, Samuel
Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study
title Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study
title_full Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study
title_fullStr Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study
title_short Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study
title_sort defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study
topic Lung Cancer
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6890387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31803474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000448
work_keys_str_mv AT ruparelmamta definingtheinformationneedsoflungcancerscreeningparticipantsaqualitativestudy
AT quaifesamantha definingtheinformationneedsoflungcancerscreeningparticipantsaqualitativestudy
AT baldwindavid definingtheinformationneedsoflungcancerscreeningparticipantsaqualitativestudy
AT wallerjo definingtheinformationneedsoflungcancerscreeningparticipantsaqualitativestudy
AT janessamuel definingtheinformationneedsoflungcancerscreeningparticipantsaqualitativestudy