4.5 Article

Patient willingness and barriers to receiving a CT scan for lung cancer screening

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 307-309

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.03.003

关键词

Lung cancer; Barriers to screening

资金

  1. Roswell Park Cancer Institute funds through the Survey Research and Data Acquisition Resource

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CT scans are becoming a more common method for detecting lung cancers at an earlier, potentially more curable, stage of disease. There is currently little data on attitudes and beliefs about screening for lung cancer. This paper presents the results of a 2011 survey of adult current and former smokers that queried about past use of CT scanning and reasons for having or not having the screening done. A random-digit dialed telephone survey was administered to a representative sample of 1290 US adults. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the correlates of having the test while controlling for the covariates. A total of 13.4% (n = 45) of the sample had ever had a CT scan to detect lung cancer. Of current smokers, 14.6% had received a CT scan, as compared with 12.7% of former smokers. The oldest age group (55+) was significantly more likely to have received a CT scan than the younger age groups. 78.5% of current smokers and 81.4% of former smokers indicated willingness to get the test if advised to do so by their doctor. Among those who said they were not willing to get screened, lack of insurance coverage was cited by 33% of current smokers and 25% of former smokers. Additionally, 33% of current smokers were afraid to find out whether they had cancer. The main barrier to CT scanning for lung cancer is likely to be insurance coverage for the test, which would be a burden for those on limited and fixed incomes. Next steps should include further research into the effect of increased public education about the availability, risks, benefits and barriers to lung cancer screening. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据