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
. 2024 May 20;9(1):23814683241252786.
doi: 10.1177/23814683241252786. eCollection 2024 Jan-Jun.

Clinician Perceptions on Using Decision Tools to Support Prediction-Based Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening

Affiliations

Clinician Perceptions on Using Decision Tools to Support Prediction-Based Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening

Sarah E Skurla et al. MDM Policy Pract. .

Abstract

Background: Considering a patient's full risk factor profile can promote personalized shared decision making (SDM). One way to accomplish this is through encounter tools that incorporate prediction models, but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice. We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).

Design: We conducted a qualitative study based on field notes from academic detailing visits during a multisite quality improvement program. The detailer engaged one-on-one with 96 primary care clinicians across multiple Veterans Affairs sites (7 medical centers and 6 outlying clinics) to get feedback on 1) the rationale for prediction-based LCS and 2) how to use the DecisionPrecision (DP) encounter tool with eligible patients to personalize LCS discussions.

Results: Thematic content analysis from detailing visit data identified 6 categories of clinician willingness to use the DP tool to personalize SDM for LCS (adoption potential), varying from "Enthusiastic Potential Adopter" (n = 18) to "Definite Non-Adopter" (n = 16). Many clinicians (n = 52) articulated how they found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing. However, to varying degrees, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.

Limitations: The results are based on the clinician's initial reactions rather than longitudinal experience.

Conclusions: While many primary care clinicians saw real value in using prediction to personalize LCS decisions, more support is needed to overcome barriers to using encounter tools in practice. Based on these findings, we propose several strategies that may facilitate the adoption of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Highlights: Encounter tools that incorporate prediction models promote personalized shared decision making (SDM), but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice.We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).While many clinicians found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.We propose several strategies to overcome adoption barriers and facilitate the use of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Keywords: academic detailing; lung cancer screening; shared decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: All authors report grants from VA QUERI during the conduct of the study. Drs. Caverly and Lowery and Ms. Skurla reports grants from VA HSR&D during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wiener serves as deputy chief consultant for the VA National Center for Lung Cancer Screening. In addition, Dr. Caverly has a patent Apache 2.0 issued.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Output from the DecisionPrecision encounter-based decision tool (example for a high-benefit patient. (1) Risk factor inputs. (2) Patient’s screening eligibility status. (3) Patient’s risk of dying from lung cancer in the next 6 y. (4) Visual representation of where the patient falls on the risk spectrum for the target population of screening-eligible patients. (5) Notes on how to discuss screening options with patient.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Castle PE, Katki HA. Screening: a risk-based framework to decide who benefits from screening. Nat Rev Clinl Oncol. 2016;13:531–2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tammemägi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG, et al.. Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8):728–36. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kovalchik SA, Tammemägi MC, Berg CD, et al.. Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(3):245–54. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mazzone PJ, Silvestri GA, Souter LH, et al.. Screening for lung cancer: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2021;160(5):e427–94. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Caverly TJ, Cao P, Hayward RA, Meza R. Identifying patients for whom lung cancer screening is preference-sensitive: a microsimulation study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(1):1–9. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources