Lung cancer screening completion among patients using decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Alexander Antigua-Made, Sabrina Nguyen, Ali Rashidi, Wen-Pin Chen, Argyrios Ziogas, Gelareh Sadigh
{"title":"Lung cancer screening completion among patients using decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Alexander Antigua-Made, Sabrina Nguyen, Ali Rashidi, Wen-Pin Chen, Argyrios Ziogas, Gelareh Sadigh","doi":"10.1007/s10552-025-01987-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS) among eligible patients remains low at 16% in 2022. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we assessed the (a) LCS completion rate, and (b) intention to complete LCS, among patients who receive patient decision aids (PDAs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English between 1 January 2011, and 28 February 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that reported PDA interventions targeting either LCS completion rate or intention to complete LCS. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies with 2,277 total participants (51.5% male) were included. The pooled LCS completion rate across all follow-up periods (range, 1-6 months) was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-65%) with an I<sup>2</sup> of 97% for heterogeneity. Pooled intention to complete LCS among patients who received PDA across all follow-up periods (same day to 3 months) was 57% (95% CI, 34% to 80%) with significant heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>) of 96% (p < 0.0001). No publication bias was identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LCS completion and intention to complete LCS among patients who use PDAs is high. Our findings support the need to implement PDAs in clinical practice which could further facilitate shared decision-making and improve LCS uptake among eligible patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":9432,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Causes & Control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Causes & Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-025-01987-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS) among eligible patients remains low at 16% in 2022. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we assessed the (a) LCS completion rate, and (b) intention to complete LCS, among patients who receive patient decision aids (PDAs).

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English between 1 January 2011, and 28 February 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that reported PDA interventions targeting either LCS completion rate or intention to complete LCS. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines.

Results: Thirteen studies with 2,277 total participants (51.5% male) were included. The pooled LCS completion rate across all follow-up periods (range, 1-6 months) was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-65%) with an I2 of 97% for heterogeneity. Pooled intention to complete LCS among patients who received PDA across all follow-up periods (same day to 3 months) was 57% (95% CI, 34% to 80%) with significant heterogeneity (I2) of 96% (p < 0.0001). No publication bias was identified.

Conclusions: LCS completion and intention to complete LCS among patients who use PDAs is high. Our findings support the need to implement PDAs in clinical practice which could further facilitate shared decision-making and improve LCS uptake among eligible patients.

使用决策辅助工具的患者完成肺癌筛查的情况:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
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
Cancer Causes & Control
Cancer Causes & Control 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
130
审稿时长
6.6 months
期刊介绍: Cancer Causes & Control is an international refereed journal that both reports and stimulates new avenues of investigation into the causes, control, and subsequent prevention of cancer. By drawing together related information published currently in a diverse range of biological and medical journals, it has a multidisciplinary and multinational approach. The scope of the journal includes: variation in cancer distribution within and between populations; factors associated with cancer risk; preventive and therapeutic interventions on a population scale; economic, demographic, and health-policy implications of cancer; and related methodological issues. The emphasis is on speed of publication. The journal will normally publish within 30 to 60 days of acceptance of manuscripts. Cancer Causes & Control publishes Original Articles, Reviews, Commentaries, Opinions, Short Communications and Letters to the Editor which will have direct relevance to researchers and practitioners working in epidemiology, medical statistics, cancer biology, health education, medical economics and related fields. The journal also contains significant information for government agencies concerned with cancer research, control and policy.
×
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