Acceptability of Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Program Among Primary Care Providers.

Paul J Resong, Jiangong Niu, Gabrielle F Duhon, Lewis E Foxhall, Sanjay Shete, Robert J Volk, Iakovos Toumazis
{"title":"Acceptability of Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Program Among Primary Care Providers.","authors":"Paul J Resong, Jiangong Niu, Gabrielle F Duhon, Lewis E Foxhall, Sanjay Shete, Robert J Volk, Iakovos Toumazis","doi":"10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-23-0359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines rely on age and smoking history. Despite its benefit, only 5%-15% of eligible patients receive LCS. Personalized screening strategies select individuals based on their lung cancer risk and may increase LCS's effectiveness. We assess current LCS practices and the acceptability of personalized LCS among primary care providers (PCP) in Texas. We surveyed 32,983 Texas-based PCPs on an existing network (Protocol 2019-1257; PI: Dr. Shete) and 300 attendees of the 2022 Texas Academy of Family Physicians (TAFP) conference. We analyzed the responses by subgroups of interest. Using nonparametric bootstrap, we derived an enriched dataset to develop logistic regression models to understand current LCS practices and acceptability of personalized LCS. Response rates were 0.3% (n = 91) and 15% (n = 60) for the 2019-1257 and TAFP surveys, respectively. Most (84%) respondents regularly assess LCS in their practice. Half of the respondents were interested in adopting personalized LCS. The majority (66%) of respondents expressed concerns regarding time availability with the personalized LCS. Most respondents would use biomarkers as an adjunct to assess eligibility (58%), or to help guide indeterminate clinical findings (63%). There is a need to enhance the engagement of Texas-based PCPs in LCS. Most of the respondents expressed interest in personalized LCS. Time availability was the main concern related to personalized LCS. Findings from this project highlight the need for better education of Texas-based PCPs on the benefits of LCS, and the development of efficient decision tools to ensure successful implementation of personalized LCS.</p><p><strong>Prevention relevance: </strong>Personalized LCS facilitated by a risk model and/or a biomarker test is proposed as an alternative to existing programs. Acceptability of personalized approach among PCPs is unknown. The goal of this study is to assess the acceptability of personalized LCS among PCPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":72514,"journal":{"name":"Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)","volume":" ","pages":"51-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10926168/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-23-0359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines rely on age and smoking history. Despite its benefit, only 5%-15% of eligible patients receive LCS. Personalized screening strategies select individuals based on their lung cancer risk and may increase LCS's effectiveness. We assess current LCS practices and the acceptability of personalized LCS among primary care providers (PCP) in Texas. We surveyed 32,983 Texas-based PCPs on an existing network (Protocol 2019-1257; PI: Dr. Shete) and 300 attendees of the 2022 Texas Academy of Family Physicians (TAFP) conference. We analyzed the responses by subgroups of interest. Using nonparametric bootstrap, we derived an enriched dataset to develop logistic regression models to understand current LCS practices and acceptability of personalized LCS. Response rates were 0.3% (n = 91) and 15% (n = 60) for the 2019-1257 and TAFP surveys, respectively. Most (84%) respondents regularly assess LCS in their practice. Half of the respondents were interested in adopting personalized LCS. The majority (66%) of respondents expressed concerns regarding time availability with the personalized LCS. Most respondents would use biomarkers as an adjunct to assess eligibility (58%), or to help guide indeterminate clinical findings (63%). There is a need to enhance the engagement of Texas-based PCPs in LCS. Most of the respondents expressed interest in personalized LCS. Time availability was the main concern related to personalized LCS. Findings from this project highlight the need for better education of Texas-based PCPs on the benefits of LCS, and the development of efficient decision tools to ensure successful implementation of personalized LCS.

Prevention relevance: Personalized LCS facilitated by a risk model and/or a biomarker test is proposed as an alternative to existing programs. Acceptability of personalized approach among PCPs is unknown. The goal of this study is to assess the acceptability of personalized LCS among PCPs.

基层医疗机构对个性化肺癌筛查计划的接受程度。
目前的肺癌筛查(LCS)指南依赖于年龄和吸烟史。尽管肺癌筛查有益,但只有 5-15% 符合条件的患者接受了肺癌筛查。个性化筛查策略根据肺癌风险选择患者,可能会提高肺癌筛查的有效性。我们评估了德克萨斯州初级保健提供者(PCP)目前的肺癌筛查实践以及对个性化肺癌筛查的接受程度。我们调查了现有网络(2019-1257 协议;PI:Shete 博士)中的 32,983 名德克萨斯州初级保健提供者和 2022 年德克萨斯州家庭医生学会 (TAFP) 会议的 300 名与会者。我们按感兴趣的亚组对回复进行了分析。利用非参数引导法,我们获得了一个丰富的数据集,用于开发逻辑回归模型,以了解当前的LCS实践和个性化LCS的可接受性。2019-1257 和 TAFP 调查的回复率分别为 0.3%(n=91)和 15%(n=60)。大多数受访者(84%)在实践中定期评估 LCS。半数受访者对采用个性化 LCS 感兴趣。大多数受访者(66%)对个性化 LCS 的时间可用性表示担忧。大多数受访者会使用生物标记物作为辅助手段来评估资格(58%),或帮助指导不确定的临床结果(63%)。需要加强德克萨斯州初级保健医生对 LCS 的参与。大多数受访者表示对个性化 LCS 感兴趣。与个性化 LCS 相关的主要问题是时间可用性。该项目的研究结果表明,有必要对德克萨斯州的初级保健医生进行更好的教育,让他们了解 LCS 的益处,并开发高效的决策工具,以确保个性化 LCS 的成功实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信