Assessing Factors Associated With Patient-Provider Discussions About Lung Cancer Screening Using Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Owen Y Cai, Jessica R Fernandez, Melinda C Aldrich, Jennifer Richmond
{"title":"Assessing Factors Associated With Patient-Provider Discussions About Lung Cancer Screening Using Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization.","authors":"Owen Y Cai, Jessica R Fernandez, Melinda C Aldrich, Jennifer Richmond","doi":"10.1016/j.cllc.2025.06.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-provider shared decision-making discussions are an important component of lung cancer screening guidelines, but little is known about factors associated with these discussions among screening-eligible patients. We used Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization to examine factors associated with discussing LCS with a provider.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Data came from an online survey of N = 516 U.S. adults meeting United States Preventive Services Task Force LCS eligibility criteria (ie, were 50-80 years of age and had at least a 20-pack year history of tobacco use).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used logistic regression to investigate whether having a LCS discussion was associated with predisposing factors (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] diagnosis), enabling factors (eg, having a primary care provider [PCP]), and need factors (eg, smoking history).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 36% participants had ever discussed LCS with a provider. Participants diagnosed with COPD (OR = 3.56, 95% CI, 1.90-6.67) and who had a first-degree relative with lung cancer (OR = 1.78, 95% CI, 1.02-3.09) had higher odds of LCS discussion than those without COPD and with no family history, respectively. Women had lower odds of LCS discussion than men (OR = 0.37, 95% CI, 0.24-0.58). Participants with an income of $30,000 to $59,999 had higher odds of LCS discussion compared to those earning < $30,000 (OR = 1.78, 95% CI, 1.06-2.98). Not having a PCP (OR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.21-0.72) and currently smoking (OR = 0.38, 95% CI, 0.18-0.79) were associated with lower odds of LCS discussion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Future interventions are needed to ensure all LCS-eligible individuals have access to provider discussions about LCS.</p>","PeriodicalId":10490,"journal":{"name":"Clinical lung cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12306795/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical lung cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2025.06.006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient-provider shared decision-making discussions are an important component of lung cancer screening guidelines, but little is known about factors associated with these discussions among screening-eligible patients. We used Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization to examine factors associated with discussing LCS with a provider.

Patients: Data came from an online survey of N = 516 U.S. adults meeting United States Preventive Services Task Force LCS eligibility criteria (ie, were 50-80 years of age and had at least a 20-pack year history of tobacco use).

Methods: We used logistic regression to investigate whether having a LCS discussion was associated with predisposing factors (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] diagnosis), enabling factors (eg, having a primary care provider [PCP]), and need factors (eg, smoking history).

Results: About 36% participants had ever discussed LCS with a provider. Participants diagnosed with COPD (OR = 3.56, 95% CI, 1.90-6.67) and who had a first-degree relative with lung cancer (OR = 1.78, 95% CI, 1.02-3.09) had higher odds of LCS discussion than those without COPD and with no family history, respectively. Women had lower odds of LCS discussion than men (OR = 0.37, 95% CI, 0.24-0.58). Participants with an income of $30,000 to $59,999 had higher odds of LCS discussion compared to those earning < $30,000 (OR = 1.78, 95% CI, 1.06-2.98). Not having a PCP (OR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.21-0.72) and currently smoking (OR = 0.38, 95% CI, 0.18-0.79) were associated with lower odds of LCS discussion.

Conclusions: Future interventions are needed to ensure all LCS-eligible individuals have access to provider discussions about LCS.

使用Andersen的健康服务利用行为模型评估肺癌筛查患者与提供者讨论相关因素。
背景:患者与提供者共同决策讨论是肺癌筛查指南的重要组成部分,但对符合筛查条件的患者中与这些讨论相关的因素知之甚少。我们使用Andersen的卫生服务利用行为模型来检查与提供者讨论LCS相关的因素。患者:数据来自一项在线调查,N = 516名符合美国预防服务工作组LCS资格标准的美国成年人(即50-80岁,至少有20包烟草使用史)。方法:我们使用逻辑回归来调查LCS讨论是否与诱发因素(如慢性阻塞性肺疾病[COPD]诊断)、使能因素(如有初级保健提供者[PCP])和需求因素(如吸烟史)相关。结果:约36%的参与者曾与医疗服务提供者讨论过LCS。诊断为COPD (OR = 3.56, 95% CI, 1.90-6.67)和有一级亲属患有肺癌(OR = 1.78, 95% CI, 1.02-3.09)的参与者分别比没有COPD和没有家族史的参与者有更高的LCS讨论几率。女性讨论LCS的几率低于男性(OR = 0.37, 95% CI, 0.24-0.58)。与收入< 30,000美元的参与者相比,收入30,000美元至59,999美元的参与者有更高的LCS讨论几率(OR = 1.78, 95% CI, 1.06-2.98)。没有PCP (OR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.21-0.72)和目前吸烟(OR = 0.38, 95% CI, 0.18-0.79)与LCS讨论的几率较低相关。结论:未来需要采取干预措施,以确保所有符合LCS条件的个体都能获得提供者关于LCS的讨论。
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
Clinical lung cancer
Clinical lung cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.80%
发文量
159
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Lung Cancer is a peer-reviewed bimonthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of lung cancer. Clinical Lung Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of lung cancer. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to lung cancer. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信