Preferences for Decision Control among a High-Risk Cohort Offered Lung Cancer Screening: A Brief Report of Secondary Analyses from the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683231163190
Stefanie Bonfield, Mamta Ruparel, Jo Waller, Jennifer L Dickson, Samuel M Janes, Samantha L Quaife
{"title":"Preferences for Decision Control among a High-Risk Cohort Offered Lung Cancer Screening: A Brief Report of Secondary Analyses from the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).","authors":"Stefanie Bonfield,&nbsp;Mamta Ruparel,&nbsp;Jo Waller,&nbsp;Jennifer L Dickson,&nbsp;Samuel M Janes,&nbsp;Samantha L Quaife","doi":"10.1177/23814683231163190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> Personal autonomy in lung cancer screening is advocated internationally, but health systems diverge in their approach, mandating either shared decision making (with a health care professional) or individual decision making. Studies of other cancer screening programs have found that individual preferences for the level of involvement in screening decisions vary across different sociodemographic groups and that aligning approaches with individual preferences has the potential to improve uptake. <b>Method.</b> For the first time, we examined preferences for decision control among a cohort of UK-based high-risk lung cancer screening candidates (<i>N</i> = 727). We used descriptive statistics to report the distribution of preferences and chi-square tests to examine associations between decision preferences and sociodemographic variables. <b>Results.</b> Most (69.7%) preferred to be involved in the decision with varying degrees of input from a health care professional. Few (10.2%) wanted to make the decision alone. Preferences were also associated with educational attainment. <b>Conclusion.</b> These findings suggest one-size-fits-all approaches may be inadequate in meeting diverse preferences, particularly those placing sole onus on the individual.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Preferences for involvement in decision making about lung cancer screening are heterogeneous among high-risk individuals in the United Kingdom and vary by educational attainment.Further work is needed to understand how policy makers might implement hybrid approaches to accommodate individual preferences and optimize lung cancer screening program outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"8 1","pages":"23814683231163190"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10064161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683231163190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Personal autonomy in lung cancer screening is advocated internationally, but health systems diverge in their approach, mandating either shared decision making (with a health care professional) or individual decision making. Studies of other cancer screening programs have found that individual preferences for the level of involvement in screening decisions vary across different sociodemographic groups and that aligning approaches with individual preferences has the potential to improve uptake. Method. For the first time, we examined preferences for decision control among a cohort of UK-based high-risk lung cancer screening candidates (N = 727). We used descriptive statistics to report the distribution of preferences and chi-square tests to examine associations between decision preferences and sociodemographic variables. Results. Most (69.7%) preferred to be involved in the decision with varying degrees of input from a health care professional. Few (10.2%) wanted to make the decision alone. Preferences were also associated with educational attainment. Conclusion. These findings suggest one-size-fits-all approaches may be inadequate in meeting diverse preferences, particularly those placing sole onus on the individual.

Highlights: Preferences for involvement in decision making about lung cancer screening are heterogeneous among high-risk individuals in the United Kingdom and vary by educational attainment.Further work is needed to understand how policy makers might implement hybrid approaches to accommodate individual preferences and optimize lung cancer screening program outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
高风险队列肺癌筛查中决策控制的偏好:肺筛查吸收试验(LSUT)的二次分析简要报告
背景。国际上提倡肺癌筛查中的个人自主,但卫生系统在方法上存在分歧,要求共同决策(与卫生保健专业人员)或个人决策。对其他癌症筛查项目的研究发现,不同社会人口群体对参与筛查决策水平的个人偏好各不相同,将方法与个人偏好相结合有可能提高接受程度。方法。我们首次在英国高风险肺癌筛查候选人队列(N = 727)中检查了决策控制的偏好。我们使用描述性统计来报告偏好的分布,并使用卡方检验来检验决策偏好与社会人口变量之间的关联。结果。大多数人(69.7%)更愿意在医疗保健专业人员不同程度的参与下参与决策。很少有人(10.2%)想独自做决定。偏好也与教育程度有关。结论。这些发现表明,一刀切的方法可能不足以满足不同的偏好,特别是那些把责任完全放在个人身上的方法。重点:参与肺癌筛查决策的偏好在英国高危人群中存在异质性,且受教育程度不同。需要进一步的工作来了解决策者如何实施混合方法来适应个人偏好并优化肺癌筛查项目的结果。
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