Veterans' Lung Cancer Risk Conceptualizations versus Lung Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Conversations with Clinicians: A Qualitative Study.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1177/0272989X241292643
Jacqueline H Boudreau, Rendelle E Bolton, Eduardo R Núñez, Tanner J Caverly, Lauren Kearney, Samantha Sliwinski, Abigail N Herbst, Christopher G Slatore, Renda Soylemez Wiener
{"title":"Veterans' Lung Cancer Risk Conceptualizations versus Lung Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Conversations with Clinicians: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Jacqueline H Boudreau, Rendelle E Bolton, Eduardo R Núñez, Tanner J Caverly, Lauren Kearney, Samantha Sliwinski, Abigail N Herbst, Christopher G Slatore, Renda Soylemez Wiener","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241292643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Veterans Health Administration (VA) recommends lung cancer screening (LCS), including shared decision making between clinicians and veteran patients. We sought to characterize 1) veteran conceptualization of lung cancer risk and 2) veteran and clinician accounts of shared decision-making discussions about LCS to assess whether they reflect veteran concerns.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative interviews at 6 VA sites, with 48 clinicians and 34 veterans offered LCS in the previous 6 mo. We thematically analyzed transcripts, focusing on lung cancer risk perceptions, LCS decision making, and patient-clinician conversations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three themes emerged. 1) Veterans' lung cancer risk conceptualizations incorporated smoking, occupational hazards, and family history, whereas clinicians focused on smoking as the primary risk factor. 2) Veterans' risk perceptions were influenced by symptoms, recency of exposures, and anecdotes about smoking, cancer, and lung disease, leading some veterans to believe other risk factors outweighed smoking in increasing lung cancer risk. 3) Both veterans and clinicians described LCS conversations centered on smoking, with little mention of other risks.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Our findings may not reflect non-VA settings; for example, veterans may be more concerned about airborne hazards.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While airborne hazards strongly influenced veterans' lung cancer risk conceptualizations, clinicians seldom addressed this risk factor during LCS shared decision making, instead focusing on smoking.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>In 2022, the US Congress highlighted the link between military toxic exposures and lung cancer risk, requiring VA clinicians to discuss these exposures and conferring automatic VA benefits to exposed veterans with cancer. There is a time-sensitive need for tools to support VA clinicians in discussing military hazards as a lung cancer risk factor, which may result in more engaging, less stigmatizing LCS shared decision-making conversations.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Veterans' conceptualizations of their lung cancer risk were multifactorial and sometimes ranked exposure to occupational airborne hazards and family history above smoking in increasing lung cancer risk.However, patient-clinician lung cancer screening (LCS) conversations were typically brief and focused on smoking, which could stigmatize patients and failed to engage veterans in discussing what mattered most to them in thinking about their lung cancer risk.These findings are of heightened importance in light of the 2022 Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, which requires VA clinicians to discuss toxic military exposures and their relationship to lung cancer and other health conditions.Tools that help clinicians assess and incorporate multiple risk factors into discussions about lung cancer may better address patients' concerns and beliefs and lead to more engaging, less stigmatizing shared decision-making conversations about LCS.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X241292643"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241292643","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) recommends lung cancer screening (LCS), including shared decision making between clinicians and veteran patients. We sought to characterize 1) veteran conceptualization of lung cancer risk and 2) veteran and clinician accounts of shared decision-making discussions about LCS to assess whether they reflect veteran concerns.

Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews at 6 VA sites, with 48 clinicians and 34 veterans offered LCS in the previous 6 mo. We thematically analyzed transcripts, focusing on lung cancer risk perceptions, LCS decision making, and patient-clinician conversations.

Results: Three themes emerged. 1) Veterans' lung cancer risk conceptualizations incorporated smoking, occupational hazards, and family history, whereas clinicians focused on smoking as the primary risk factor. 2) Veterans' risk perceptions were influenced by symptoms, recency of exposures, and anecdotes about smoking, cancer, and lung disease, leading some veterans to believe other risk factors outweighed smoking in increasing lung cancer risk. 3) Both veterans and clinicians described LCS conversations centered on smoking, with little mention of other risks.

Limitations: Our findings may not reflect non-VA settings; for example, veterans may be more concerned about airborne hazards.

Conclusions: While airborne hazards strongly influenced veterans' lung cancer risk conceptualizations, clinicians seldom addressed this risk factor during LCS shared decision making, instead focusing on smoking.

Implications: In 2022, the US Congress highlighted the link between military toxic exposures and lung cancer risk, requiring VA clinicians to discuss these exposures and conferring automatic VA benefits to exposed veterans with cancer. There is a time-sensitive need for tools to support VA clinicians in discussing military hazards as a lung cancer risk factor, which may result in more engaging, less stigmatizing LCS shared decision-making conversations.

Highlights: Veterans' conceptualizations of their lung cancer risk were multifactorial and sometimes ranked exposure to occupational airborne hazards and family history above smoking in increasing lung cancer risk.However, patient-clinician lung cancer screening (LCS) conversations were typically brief and focused on smoking, which could stigmatize patients and failed to engage veterans in discussing what mattered most to them in thinking about their lung cancer risk.These findings are of heightened importance in light of the 2022 Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, which requires VA clinicians to discuss toxic military exposures and their relationship to lung cancer and other health conditions.Tools that help clinicians assess and incorporate multiple risk factors into discussions about lung cancer may better address patients' concerns and beliefs and lead to more engaging, less stigmatizing shared decision-making conversations about LCS.

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
退伍军人的肺癌风险概念与肺癌筛查与临床医生的共同决策对话:定性研究。
背景:退伍军人健康管理局(VA)建议进行肺癌筛查(LCS),包括临床医生和退伍军人患者共同决策。我们试图描述:1)退伍军人对肺癌风险的概念;2)退伍军人和临床医生对肺癌筛查共同决策讨论的描述,以评估它们是否反映了退伍军人的担忧:我们在退伍军人事务部的 6 个地点对 48 名临床医生和 34 名在过去 6 个月中接受过 LCS 治疗的退伍军人进行了定性访谈。我们对访谈记录进行了主题分析,重点关注肺癌风险认知、LCS 决策以及患者与临床医生的对话:结果:出现了三个主题。1)退伍军人的肺癌风险概念包括吸烟、职业危害和家族史,而临床医生则将吸烟作为主要风险因素。2)退伍军人的风险认知受到症状、暴露时间以及有关吸烟、癌症和肺病的轶事的影响,导致一些退伍军人认为其他风险因素在增加肺癌风险方面的作用大于吸烟。3) 退伍军人和临床医生描述的LCS谈话都以吸烟为中心,很少提及其他风险:我们的研究结果可能无法反映非退伍军人的情况;例如,退伍军人可能更关注空气传播的危害:虽然空气传播的危害对退伍军人的肺癌风险概念有很大影响,但临床医生在肺癌共同决策过程中很少涉及这一风险因素,而是将重点放在吸烟上:2022 年,美国国会强调了军队有毒物质暴露与肺癌风险之间的联系,要求退伍军人事务部的临床医生讨论这些暴露,并自动向暴露于有毒物质的癌症退伍军人发放退伍军人事务部津贴。退伍军人事务部的临床医生在讨论作为肺癌风险因素的军事危害时,迫切需要一些工具来提供支持,这可能会使共同决策对话更具参与性、更少污名化:退伍军人对其肺癌风险的概念是多因素的,有时会将暴露于职业性空气传播危害和家族病史列为增加肺癌风险的因素中高于吸烟的因素。然而,患者与临床医生之间的肺癌筛查(LCS)谈话通常很简短,且主要集中在吸烟问题上,这可能会使患者感到耻辱,也无法让退伍军人参与讨论在思考其肺癌风险时什么对他们最重要。鉴于 2022 年《一级军士长希斯-罗宾逊履行我们的承诺以解决综合毒物问题法案》(PACT)要求退伍军人事务部的临床医生讨论有毒军事暴露及其与肺癌和其他健康问题的关系,这些研究结果就显得尤为重要。
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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Veterans' Lung Cancer Risk Conceptualizations versus Lung Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Conversations with Clinicians: A Qualitative Study. Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model.
×
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