Supporting community translation of lung cancer screening: A web-based decision aid to support informed decision making.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jamie L Studts, Richard S Thurer, Christina R Studts, Margaret M Byrne
{"title":"Supporting community translation of lung cancer screening: A web-based decision aid to support informed decision making.","authors":"Jamie L Studts, Richard S Thurer, Christina R Studts, Margaret M Byrne","doi":"10.1093/tbm/ibae073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Results of the National Lung Screening Trial create the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but community translation of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been challenging. Subsequent policies have endorsed informed and shared decision-making and using decision support tools to support person-centered choices about screening to facilitate implementation. This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of LuCaS CHOICES, a web-based decision aid to support delivery of accurate information, facilitate communication skill development, and clarify personal preferences regarding LCS-a key component of high-quality LCS implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a parallel groups randomized trial, the study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of LuCaS CHOICES decision aid in comparison to the National Cancer Institute's Lung Cancer Screening website. Three waves of self-report data were collected: baseline (PRE), 2 weeks post-baseline (POST), and 4 months post-baseline (FOL). Participant accrual and intervention access data were also collected to evaluate methodological feasibility for conducting a larger subsequent trial.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants assigned to LuCaS CHOICES (n = 25) and the NCI website (n = 25) interventions reported similar, favorable levels of intervention feasibility and acceptability that exceeded a priori criteria. Methodological feasibility was partially supported for the proposed accrual and retention goals, but accrual was slower than hypothesized, and documented exposure to the digital interventions was suboptimal per a priori standards.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, both interventions demonstrated intervention feasibility and acceptability. In addition, the proposed methods achieved desired levels of retention and overall data collection. Modifications to enhance intervention engagement should be explored prior to further testing. Subsequent steps involve conducting a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of LuCaS CHOICES on informed decision making and preference-concordant screening behavior, supporting LCS translation into community settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48679,"journal":{"name":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736779/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae073","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Results of the National Lung Screening Trial create the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but community translation of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been challenging. Subsequent policies have endorsed informed and shared decision-making and using decision support tools to support person-centered choices about screening to facilitate implementation. This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of LuCaS CHOICES, a web-based decision aid to support delivery of accurate information, facilitate communication skill development, and clarify personal preferences regarding LCS-a key component of high-quality LCS implementation.

Methods: Using a parallel groups randomized trial, the study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of LuCaS CHOICES decision aid in comparison to the National Cancer Institute's Lung Cancer Screening website. Three waves of self-report data were collected: baseline (PRE), 2 weeks post-baseline (POST), and 4 months post-baseline (FOL). Participant accrual and intervention access data were also collected to evaluate methodological feasibility for conducting a larger subsequent trial.

Results: Participants assigned to LuCaS CHOICES (n = 25) and the NCI website (n = 25) interventions reported similar, favorable levels of intervention feasibility and acceptability that exceeded a priori criteria. Methodological feasibility was partially supported for the proposed accrual and retention goals, but accrual was slower than hypothesized, and documented exposure to the digital interventions was suboptimal per a priori standards.

Conclusions: Overall, both interventions demonstrated intervention feasibility and acceptability. In addition, the proposed methods achieved desired levels of retention and overall data collection. Modifications to enhance intervention engagement should be explored prior to further testing. Subsequent steps involve conducting a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of LuCaS CHOICES on informed decision making and preference-concordant screening behavior, supporting LCS translation into community settings.

支持肺癌筛查的社区翻译:支持知情决策的基于网络的决策援助。
背景:国家肺筛查试验的结果创造了降低肺癌死亡率的潜力,但肺癌筛查(LCS)的社区翻译一直具有挑战性。随后的政策支持知情和共同决策,并使用决策支持工具来支持以人为本的筛查选择,以促进实施。本研究评估了LuCaS CHOICES的可行性和可接受性。LuCaS CHOICES是一种基于网络的决策辅助工具,用于支持准确信息的传递,促进沟通技能的发展,并阐明个人对LCS的偏好——这是高质量LCS实施的关键组成部分。方法:采用平行组随机试验,对比美国国家癌症研究所肺癌筛查网站,研究LuCaS CHOICES决策辅助的可行性和可接受性。收集三波自我报告数据:基线(PRE)、基线后2周(POST)和基线后4个月(FOL)。还收集了参与者应计和干预措施获取数据,以评估进行更大规模后续试验的方法学可行性。结果:被分配到LuCaS CHOICES (n = 25)和NCI网站(n = 25)干预的参与者报告了类似的、有利的干预可行性和可接受性水平,超过了先验标准。方法上的可行性部分支持所提出的应计收益和保留目标,但应计收益比假设的要慢,并且根据先验标准,数字干预的记录暴露是次优的。结论:总体而言,两种干预均表现出干预的可行性和可接受性。此外,所建议的方法达到了所需的保留和总体数据收集水平。在进一步的测试之前,应该探索改进措施以加强干预的参与。随后的步骤包括进行一项随机临床试验,以评估LuCaS CHOICES对知情决策和偏好一致筛查行为的影响,支持LCS在社区环境中的转化。
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
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Translational Behavioral Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Translational Behavioral Medicine publishes content that engages, informs, and catalyzes dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM began receiving an Impact Factor in 2015 and currently holds an Impact Factor of 2.989. TBM is one of two journals published by the Society of Behavioral Medicine. The Society of Behavioral Medicine is a multidisciplinary organization of clinicians, educators, and scientists dedicated to promoting the study of the interactions of behavior with biology and the environment, and then applying that knowledge to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and populations.
×
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