Timothy J Williamson, Whitney M Brymwitt, Erin A Hirsch, McKenzie T Reese, Lisa Carter-Bawa
{"title":"2021年指南前后美国肺癌筛查的患者-临床讨论","authors":"Timothy J Williamson, Whitney M Brymwitt, Erin A Hirsch, McKenzie T Reese, Lisa Carter-Bawa","doi":"10.1093/tbm/ibaf039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Screening for lung cancer via low-dose computed tomography of the chest can promote early detection and reduce mortality. However, since the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) issued lung cancer screening guidelines in 2013, uptake has been low. The USPSTF revised the guidelines in 2021 to expand eligibility.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening differs from 2017 to 2022 following 2021 revisions to the guidelines for lung cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained from the Health Information National Trends Survey (2017, 2020, and 2022). Community-dwelling US adults (N = 2973) were in the eligible age range for lung cancer screening (55-80 for 2017 and 2020; 50-80 for 2022), reported current or former smoking, and had no prior history of lung cancer. The primary outcome was self-reported patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening within the last 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The weighted proportion of respondents who discussed lung cancer screening with a healthcare provider was 12.34% in 2017, 13.77% in 2020, and 9.42% in 2022. The odds of reporting screening discussions were significantly lower in 2022 than 2020 (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.36, 0.93]). Individuals with insurance (OR = 9.12, 95% CI [2.81, 29.96]) and those who were currently smoking (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.89, 4.13]) had higher odds of discussing screening.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening were lower in 2022 than 2020, despite revised guidelines that broadened eligibility. Research should explore strategies to increase awareness of lung cancer screening and prioritize discussions about screening among those who are uninsured and formerly smoked.</p>","PeriodicalId":48679,"journal":{"name":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12349918/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-clinician discussions on lung cancer screening in the United States before and after 2021 guidelines.\",\"authors\":\"Timothy J Williamson, Whitney M Brymwitt, Erin A Hirsch, McKenzie T Reese, Lisa Carter-Bawa\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tbm/ibaf039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Screening for lung cancer via low-dose computed tomography of the chest can promote early detection and reduce mortality. However, since the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) issued lung cancer screening guidelines in 2013, uptake has been low. The USPSTF revised the guidelines in 2021 to expand eligibility.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening differs from 2017 to 2022 following 2021 revisions to the guidelines for lung cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained from the Health Information National Trends Survey (2017, 2020, and 2022). Community-dwelling US adults (N = 2973) were in the eligible age range for lung cancer screening (55-80 for 2017 and 2020; 50-80 for 2022), reported current or former smoking, and had no prior history of lung cancer. The primary outcome was self-reported patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening within the last 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The weighted proportion of respondents who discussed lung cancer screening with a healthcare provider was 12.34% in 2017, 13.77% in 2020, and 9.42% in 2022. The odds of reporting screening discussions were significantly lower in 2022 than 2020 (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.36, 0.93]). Individuals with insurance (OR = 9.12, 95% CI [2.81, 29.96]) and those who were currently smoking (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.89, 4.13]) had higher odds of discussing screening.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening were lower in 2022 than 2020, despite revised guidelines that broadened eligibility. Research should explore strategies to increase awareness of lung cancer screening and prioritize discussions about screening among those who are uninsured and formerly smoked.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12349918/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibaf039\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibaf039","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}
Patient-clinician discussions on lung cancer screening in the United States before and after 2021 guidelines.
Background: Screening for lung cancer via low-dose computed tomography of the chest can promote early detection and reduce mortality. However, since the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) issued lung cancer screening guidelines in 2013, uptake has been low. The USPSTF revised the guidelines in 2021 to expand eligibility.
Purpose: To determine whether patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening differs from 2017 to 2022 following 2021 revisions to the guidelines for lung cancer screening.
Methods: Data were obtained from the Health Information National Trends Survey (2017, 2020, and 2022). Community-dwelling US adults (N = 2973) were in the eligible age range for lung cancer screening (55-80 for 2017 and 2020; 50-80 for 2022), reported current or former smoking, and had no prior history of lung cancer. The primary outcome was self-reported patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening within the last 12 months.
Results: The weighted proportion of respondents who discussed lung cancer screening with a healthcare provider was 12.34% in 2017, 13.77% in 2020, and 9.42% in 2022. The odds of reporting screening discussions were significantly lower in 2022 than 2020 (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.36, 0.93]). Individuals with insurance (OR = 9.12, 95% CI [2.81, 29.96]) and those who were currently smoking (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.89, 4.13]) had higher odds of discussing screening.
Conclusions: Patient-clinician discussions about lung cancer screening were lower in 2022 than 2020, despite revised guidelines that broadened eligibility. Research should explore strategies to increase awareness of lung cancer screening and prioritize discussions about screening among those who are uninsured and formerly smoked.
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.