Alexander Antigua-Made, Sabrina Nguyen, Ali Rashidi, Wen-Pin Chen, Argyrios Ziogas, Gelareh Sadigh
{"title":"Lung cancer screening completion among patients using decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Alexander Antigua-Made, Sabrina Nguyen, Ali Rashidi, Wen-Pin Chen, Argyrios Ziogas, Gelareh Sadigh","doi":"10.1007/s10552-025-01987-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS) among eligible patients remains low at 16% in 2022. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we assessed the (a) LCS completion rate, and (b) intention to complete LCS, among patients who receive patient decision aids (PDAs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English between 1 January 2011, and 28 February 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that reported PDA interventions targeting either LCS completion rate or intention to complete LCS. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies with 2,277 total participants (51.5% male) were included. The pooled LCS completion rate across all follow-up periods (range, 1-6 months) was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-65%) with an I<sup>2</sup> of 97% for heterogeneity. Pooled intention to complete LCS among patients who received PDA across all follow-up periods (same day to 3 months) was 57% (95% CI, 34% to 80%) with significant heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>) of 96% (p < 0.0001). No publication bias was identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LCS completion and intention to complete LCS among patients who use PDAs is high. Our findings support the need to implement PDAs in clinical practice which could further facilitate shared decision-making and improve LCS uptake among eligible patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":9432,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Causes & Control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Causes & Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-025-01987-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS) among eligible patients remains low at 16% in 2022. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we assessed the (a) LCS completion rate, and (b) intention to complete LCS, among patients who receive patient decision aids (PDAs).
Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English between 1 January 2011, and 28 February 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that reported PDA interventions targeting either LCS completion rate or intention to complete LCS. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines.
Results: Thirteen studies with 2,277 total participants (51.5% male) were included. The pooled LCS completion rate across all follow-up periods (range, 1-6 months) was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-65%) with an I2 of 97% for heterogeneity. Pooled intention to complete LCS among patients who received PDA across all follow-up periods (same day to 3 months) was 57% (95% CI, 34% to 80%) with significant heterogeneity (I2) of 96% (p < 0.0001). No publication bias was identified.
Conclusions: LCS completion and intention to complete LCS among patients who use PDAs is high. Our findings support the need to implement PDAs in clinical practice which could further facilitate shared decision-making and improve LCS uptake among eligible patients.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Causes & Control is an international refereed journal that both reports and stimulates new avenues of investigation into the causes, control, and subsequent prevention of cancer. By drawing together related information published currently in a diverse range of biological and medical journals, it has a multidisciplinary and multinational approach.
The scope of the journal includes: variation in cancer distribution within and between populations; factors associated with cancer risk; preventive and therapeutic interventions on a population scale; economic, demographic, and health-policy implications of cancer; and related methodological issues.
The emphasis is on speed of publication. The journal will normally publish within 30 to 60 days of acceptance of manuscripts.
Cancer Causes & Control publishes Original Articles, Reviews, Commentaries, Opinions, Short Communications and Letters to the Editor which will have direct relevance to researchers and practitioners working in epidemiology, medical statistics, cancer biology, health education, medical economics and related fields. The journal also contains significant information for government agencies concerned with cancer research, control and policy.