"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1370/afm.3081
Eduardo R Núñez, Rendelle E Bolton, Jacqueline H Boudreau, Samantha K Sliwinski, Abigail N Herbst, Lauren E Kearney, Tanner J Caverly, Renda Soylemez Wiener
{"title":"\"It Can't Hurt!\": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.","authors":"Eduardo R Núñez, Rendelle E Bolton, Jacqueline H Boudreau, Samantha K Sliwinski, Abigail N Herbst, Lauren E Kearney, Tanner J Caverly, Renda Soylemez Wiener","doi":"10.1370/afm.3081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50973,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Family Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11237214/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3081","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS.

Methods: We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making.

Results: Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures.

Conclusions: Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"不会疼的!":为什么许多预期寿命有限的患者决定接受肺癌筛查?
目的:肺癌筛查(LCS)对有多种并发症且预期寿命有限的人群的益处较小,而造成先天性伤害的可能性较大。然而,与符合肺癌筛查条件的健康人群相比,这些人更有可能接受筛查。我们试图了解LCS微利患者是如何看待自己的健康并就LCS做出决定的:我们采访了 40 名患有多种疾病且预期寿命有限的患者,他们的护理评估需求分数较高,可预测 1 年的住院或死亡风险。患者是在与临床医生讨论过 LCS 后从退伍军人健康管理局的 6 家机构中招募的。我们使用恒定比较法进行了主题分析,以探讨影响 LCS 决策的因素:结果:患者普遍对筛查持积极态度,并认为 LCS 是非侵入性的。当被问及益处有限的假设情况时,患者强调 LCS 的非长寿益处(如安心、规划未来),在做出 LCS 决定时一般不考虑自己的健康状况或预期寿命。大多数患者不知道对筛查出的结果可能进行额外的评估或治疗,但当进一步询问时,许多患者对可能需要进行多次评估、转诊或侵入性治疗表示担忧:结论:在本研究中,患有多种疾病且预期寿命有限的患者在接受 LCS 时并未意识到他们面临的潜在伤害风险更大。考虑到患者对临床医生建议的信任度,临床医生必须让LCS仅有微弱获益的患者参与共同决策,确保他们希望获得更多健康信息的价值观与进一步评估的潜在危害进行权衡。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Family Medicine
Annals of Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Family Medicine is a peer-reviewed research journal to meet the needs of scientists, practitioners, policymakers, and the patients and communities they serve.
期刊最新文献
Prehospital Clinical Decision-Making for Medication Administration for Behavioral Emergencies. Rapid Antigen Testing in School Health Offices for Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A. Assessment and comparison of the ILI case definition in clinical and school-based community settings: ORCHARDS/IISP. Efficacy and Safety of BB-12 Supplemented Strawberry Yogurt For Healthy Children on Antibiotics (PLAY ON). Exploratory Pilot Studies to Demonstrate Mechanisms of Preventing Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea and the Role for Probiotics.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1