Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Jan 3;3(1):e1920362.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20362.

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

Robert J Volk  1 , Lisa M Lowenstein  1 , Viola B Leal  1 , Kamisha H Escoto  2 , Scott B Cantor  1 , Reginald F Munden  3 , Vance A Rabius  4 , Linda Bailey  5 , Paul M Cinciripini  4 , Heather Lin  6 , Ashley J Housten  1 , Pamela Graef Luckett  7 , Angelina Esparza  8 , Myrna C Godoy  9 , Therese B Bevers  10
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Robert J Volk et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Volk reported receiving research support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center during the conduct of the study. Dr Lowenstein reported receiving grants from PCORI, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute, and the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Ms Leal reported receiving grants from PCORI, the National Cancer Institute, and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Munden reported receiving stock options from Optellum Ltd and preferred stock from TheraBionic outside the submitted work.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. CONSORT Flow Diagram
Participants (n = 20) missing 1-week follow-up assessments completed the 3-month follow-up; participants (n = 24) missing 3-month follow-up assessments completed the 6-month follow-up.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Khan N, Afaq F, Mukhtar H. Lifestyle as risk factor for cancer: evidence from human studies. Cancer Lett. 2010;293(2):-. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2009.12.013 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7-34. doi:10.3322/caac.21551 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. ; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team . Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395-409. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Huo J, Shen C, Volk RJ, Shih YT. Use of CT and chest radiography for lung cancer screening before and after publication of screening guidelines: intended and unintended uptake. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):439-441. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9016 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. . Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2418-2429. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5521 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data