4.4 Article

Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis

期刊

HEALTH EXPECTATIONS
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 1314-1321

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12975

关键词

behaviour; long-term smokers; lung cancer screening; qualitative

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [1R15CA208543-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Although new screening programmes with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer have been implemented throughout the United States, screening uptake remains low and screening-eligible persons' decisions to screen or not remain poorly understood. Objective To describe how current and former long-term smokers explain their decisions regarding participation in lung cancer screening. Design Phone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide were conducted to ask screening-eligible persons to describe their decisions regarding screening with LDCT. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with conventional content analytic techniques. Setting and participants A subsample of 40 participants (20 who had screened and 20 who had not) were drawn from the sample of a survey study whose participants were recruited by Facebook targeted advertisements. Results The sample was divided into the following five groups based on their decisions regarding lung cancer screening participation: Group 1: no intention to be screened, Group 2: no deliberate consideration but somewhat open to being screened, Group 3: deliberate consideration but no definitive decision to be screened, Group 4: intention to be screened and Group 5: had been screened. Reasons for screening participation decisions are described for each group. Across groups, data revealed that screening-eligible persons have a number of misconceptions regarding LDCT, including that a scan is needed only if one is symptomatic or has not had a chest x-ray. A physician recommendation was a key influence on decisions to screen. Discussion and conclusions Education initiatives aimed at providers and long-term smokers regarding LDCT is needed. Quality patient/provider communication is most likely to improve screening rates.

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

4.4
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