4.6 Article

A Cross-Sectional Study on the Acceptability of Implementing a Lung Cancer Screening Program in Belgium

期刊

CANCERS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15010278

关键词

lung cancer screening; prevention; Belgium; acceptability

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the overall acceptability of a lung cancer screening program in the Flemish population and the main factors that would influence the overall acceptability of such a program. The results showed that the acceptability of the screening program was 92%, and key factors such as low education, low protective factor knowledge, and screening reimbursement significantly influenced the acceptability. It is important for policymakers to aim for reimbursement, conduct gender-specific campaigns, and invest in increasing knowledge about lung cancer and protective factors.
Simple Summary Lung cancer is the most common and deadliest cancer worldwide, and the number of new cases per year is expected to grow. Belgium is among the top 10 countries with most new cases of lung cancer in the world, with lung cancer incidence accounting for 11.8% of all cancers diagnosed and 23.8% of all cancer-related deaths. This study aimed to determine the overall acceptability of a lung cancer screening program in the Flemish population and the main factors that would influence the overall acceptability of such a program. Modeling of the results of a questionnaire distributed to the Flemish population showed 92% acceptability. Furthermore, policymakers should aim for it to be reimbursed, and campaigns should be gender-specific, focused on those with lower educational and socioeconomic status, along with investment in increasing total knowledge about lung cancer and about protective factors. Lung cancer is the most common and deadliest cancer in the world, and its incidence is expected to grow. Nonetheless, this growth can be contained through smoking cessation programs and effective lung cancer screening programs. In 2018, Belgium had the seventh highest incidence of lung cancer in the world, with lung cancer incidence accounting for 11.8% of all cancers diagnosed and 23.8% of all cancer-related deaths that same year. The aims of this study were to determine the overall acceptability of a lung cancer screening program in the Flemish population and to determine the main factors that would influence the overall acceptability of such a program. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was performed in the Flemish population and distributed online and on paper. The results are presented with the variables of interest and the main outcome, i.e., the acceptability of participating in such a program if implemented. Odds ratios were used to compare acceptability between subgroups. A multivariate regression model was used to determine the key factors that would have the largest impact on the level of acceptability and, thus, on the possible efficiency of such a program. This study estimated that acceptability of participating in a lung cancer screening program was 92%. Irrespective of the smoking status, levels of acceptability were higher than 89%. The key factors which could significantly influence the acceptability of a lung cancer screening program were individuals with low education, low protective factor knowledge and total knowledge, and lung cancer screening reimbursement, which were significantly associated with acceptability (0.01, 0.001, 0.01, and 0.05 respectively). Low protective factor knowledge decreased the log odds of acceptability 3.08-fold. In conclusion, the acceptability of implementing a lung cancer screening program in Flanders seems to be extremely high and would be well received by all. When implementing such a program, policymakers should aim for it to be reimbursed, campaigns should be gender-specific, focused on those with lower educational and socioeconomic status, and there should be investment in increasing total knowledge about lung cancer and knowledge about protective factors.

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

4.6
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