3.9 Article

Preferences for Decision Control among a High-Risk Cohort Offered Lung Cancer Screening: A Brief Report of Secondary Analyses from the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT)

Journal

MDM POLICY & PRACTICE
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/23814683231163190

Keywords

decision control preferences; lung cancer screening; shared decision making

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined preferences for decision control among UK-based high-risk lung cancer screening candidates and found that most preferred to be involved in the decision with varying degrees of input from a health care professional, while few wanted to make the decision alone. Preferences were also associated with educational attainment.
Background. Personal autonomy in lung cancer screening is advocated internationally, but health systems diverge in their approach, mandating either shared decision making (with a health care professional) or individual decision making. Studies of other cancer screening programs have found that individual preferences for the level of involvement in screening decisions vary across different sociodemographic groups and that aligning approaches with individual preferences has the potential to improve uptake. Method. For the first time, we examined preferences for decision control among a cohort of UK-based high-risk lung cancer screening candidates (N = 727). We used descriptive statistics to report the distribution of preferences and chi-square tests to examine associations between decision preferences and sociodemographic variables. Results. Most (69.7%) preferred to be involved in the decision with varying degrees of input from a health care professional. Few (10.2%) wanted to make the decision alone. Preferences were also associated with educational attainment. Conclusion. These findings suggest one-size-fits-all approaches may be inadequate in meeting diverse preferences, particularly those placing sole onus on the individual.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available