Is Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Associated with Patient-Centered Outcomes? A Multi-institutional Cohort Study.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-17 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683241286884
Liana Schweiger, Sara E Golden, Donald R Sullivan, Ian Ilea, Sean P M Rice, Anne C Melzer, Santanu Datta, James M Davis, Christopher G Slatore
{"title":"Is Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Associated with Patient-Centered Outcomes? A Multi-institutional Cohort Study.","authors":"Liana Schweiger, Sara E Golden, Donald R Sullivan, Ian Ilea, Sean P M Rice, Anne C Melzer, Santanu Datta, James M Davis, Christopher G Slatore","doi":"10.1177/23814683241286884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction.</b> The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandate that clinicians use a shared decision-making interaction to provide information about the harms and benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS). <b>Methods.</b> We enrolled patients from 3 geographically diverse medical centers after a decision-making interaction about undergoing LCS but before receiving a low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. We performed the primary analysis based on the primary knowledge question, \"Which of these conditions do you think that the CT scan screens for?\" We used the knowledge summary score in secondary analyses. We evaluated LCS care experience by using validated instruments to measure participant-reported communication quality (Consultation Care Measure), perception of the primary LCS clinician (Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems), and decision conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). <b>Results.</b> Of the 409 participants, 44% correctly answered the primary LCS knowledge question. Clinician communication quality was rated positively by 93% of participants. Most (93%) participants rated their LCS clinician as good. Only 14% reported decision conflict. Correctly answering the primary LCS knowledge question was associated with higher patient-clinician communication quality scores (b = 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.1, 0.7]; <i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> change = 0.03) and higher LCS clinician ratings (b = 0.4; 95% CI [0.0, 0.7]; <i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> change = 0.02) but not with decision conflict. In secondary analyses, higher total LCS knowledge score was associated with lower Decisional Conflict Scale scores (b = -2.2; 95% CI [-3.4, -0.9]; <i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> change = 0.24), indicating lower decision conflict. <b>Conclusions.</b> After an LCS decision-making interaction, many patients do not retain basic knowledge about LCS but nevertheless had low levels of decision conflict. Primary LCS knowledge may be important but insufficient to ensure high-quality, patient-centered LCS care.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Survey of patients with a lung cancer screening (LCS) decision-making interaction.Only 44% of patients correctly answered the knowledge question about LCS.Primary LCS knowledge was not associated with decision conflict.Patient knowledge about LCS may not equate to high-quality patient-centered care.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"9 2","pages":"23814683241286884"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526162/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241286884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandate that clinicians use a shared decision-making interaction to provide information about the harms and benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS). Methods. We enrolled patients from 3 geographically diverse medical centers after a decision-making interaction about undergoing LCS but before receiving a low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. We performed the primary analysis based on the primary knowledge question, "Which of these conditions do you think that the CT scan screens for?" We used the knowledge summary score in secondary analyses. We evaluated LCS care experience by using validated instruments to measure participant-reported communication quality (Consultation Care Measure), perception of the primary LCS clinician (Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems), and decision conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Results. Of the 409 participants, 44% correctly answered the primary LCS knowledge question. Clinician communication quality was rated positively by 93% of participants. Most (93%) participants rated their LCS clinician as good. Only 14% reported decision conflict. Correctly answering the primary LCS knowledge question was associated with higher patient-clinician communication quality scores (b = 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.1, 0.7]; R 2 change = 0.03) and higher LCS clinician ratings (b = 0.4; 95% CI [0.0, 0.7]; R 2 change = 0.02) but not with decision conflict. In secondary analyses, higher total LCS knowledge score was associated with lower Decisional Conflict Scale scores (b = -2.2; 95% CI [-3.4, -0.9]; R 2 change = 0.24), indicating lower decision conflict. Conclusions. After an LCS decision-making interaction, many patients do not retain basic knowledge about LCS but nevertheless had low levels of decision conflict. Primary LCS knowledge may be important but insufficient to ensure high-quality, patient-centered LCS care.

Highlights: Survey of patients with a lung cancer screening (LCS) decision-making interaction.Only 44% of patients correctly answered the knowledge question about LCS.Primary LCS knowledge was not associated with decision conflict.Patient knowledge about LCS may not equate to high-quality patient-centered care.

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
肺癌筛查知识与以患者为中心的结果相关吗?一项多机构队列研究。
导言。医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心规定,临床医生应采用共同决策互动的方式,提供有关肺癌筛查(LCS)危害和益处的信息。方法。我们从 3 个地理位置不同的医疗中心招募了在接受低剂量计算机断层扫描 (CT) 之前、经过肺癌筛查决策互动的患者。我们根据主要知识问题 "您认为 CT 扫描能筛查出哪些疾病?"进行了主要分析。我们在次要分析中使用了知识汇总得分。我们使用经过验证的工具来测量参与者报告的沟通质量(咨询护理测量)、对主要 LCS 临床医生的看法(医疗保健提供者和系统消费者评估)以及决策冲突(决策冲突量表),以此评估 LCS 护理体验。结果。在 409 名参与者中,44% 正确回答了初级 LCS 知识问题。93%的参与者对临床医生的沟通质量给予了积极评价。大多数参与者(93%)将他们的 LCS 临床医生评为 "好"。只有 14% 的参与者表示他们的决定存在冲突。正确回答主要 LCS 知识问题与较高的患者-临床医生沟通质量评分(b = 0.4;95% 置信区间 [CI] [0.1, 0.7];R 2 变化 = 0.03)和较高的 LCS 临床医生评分(b = 0.4;95% 置信区间 [CI] [0.0, 0.7];R 2 变化 = 0.02)相关,但与决策冲突无关。在二次分析中,较高的 LCS 知识总分与较低的决策冲突量表得分相关(b = -2.2; 95% CI [-3.4, -0.9];R 2 变化 = 0.24),表明决策冲突较低。结论在进行 LCS 决策互动后,许多患者没有保留有关 LCS 的基本知识,但决策冲突程度较低。基本的肺癌筛查知识可能很重要,但不足以确保高质量的、以患者为中心的肺癌筛查护理:对进行肺癌筛查(LCS)决策互动的患者进行了调查,只有 44% 的患者正确回答了有关 LCS 的知识问题,LCS 的基本知识与决策冲突无关。
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
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prioritizing Patients from the Most Deprived Areas on Elective Waiting Lists in the NHS in England: Estimating the Health and Health Inequality Impact. Optimizing Masks and Random Screening Test Usage within K-12 Schools. Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis. Implications of Diminishing Lifespan Marginal Utility for Valuing Equity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Evaluation of the Soda Tax on Obesity and Diabetes in California: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
×
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