The impact of perceived risk, screening eligibility and worry on preference for lung cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey. Issue 1 (16th March 2020)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- The impact of perceived risk, screening eligibility and worry on preference for lung cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey. Issue 1 (16th March 2020)
- Main Title:
- The impact of perceived risk, screening eligibility and worry on preference for lung cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey
- Authors:
- See, Katharine
Manser, Renee
Park, Elyse R.
Steinfort, Daniel
King, Bridget
Piccolo, Francesco
Manners, David - Abstract:
- Lung cancer screening is effective at reducing lung cancer deaths when individuals at greatest risk are screened. Recruitment initiatives target all current and former smokers, of whom only some are eligible for screening, potentially leading to discordance between screening preference and eligibility in ineligible individuals. The objective of the present study was to identify factors associated with preference for screening among ever-smokers. Ever-smokers aged 55–80 years attending outpatient clinics at three Australian hospitals were invited. The survey recorded: 1) demographics; 2) objective lung cancer risk and screening eligibility using the Prostate Lung Colon Ovarian 2012 risk model; and 3) perceived lung cancer risk, worry about and seriousness of lung cancer using a validated questionnaire. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression identified predictors of screening preference. The survey was completed by 283 individuals (response rate 27%). Preference for screening was high (72%) with no significant difference between low-dose computed tomography screening-eligible and -ineligible individuals (77% versus 68%, p=0.11). Worry about lung cancer (adjusted-proportional odds ratio (adj-OR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.08–1.58; p=0.007) and perceived seriousness of lung cancer (adj-OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05–1.64; p=0.02) were associated with higher preference for lung cancer screening while screening eligibility was not. The concept of "early detection" was the most important driver toLung cancer screening is effective at reducing lung cancer deaths when individuals at greatest risk are screened. Recruitment initiatives target all current and former smokers, of whom only some are eligible for screening, potentially leading to discordance between screening preference and eligibility in ineligible individuals. The objective of the present study was to identify factors associated with preference for screening among ever-smokers. Ever-smokers aged 55–80 years attending outpatient clinics at three Australian hospitals were invited. The survey recorded: 1) demographics; 2) objective lung cancer risk and screening eligibility using the Prostate Lung Colon Ovarian 2012 risk model; and 3) perceived lung cancer risk, worry about and seriousness of lung cancer using a validated questionnaire. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression identified predictors of screening preference. The survey was completed by 283 individuals (response rate 27%). Preference for screening was high (72%) with no significant difference between low-dose computed tomography screening-eligible and -ineligible individuals (77% versus 68%, p=0.11). Worry about lung cancer (adjusted-proportional odds ratio (adj-OR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.08–1.58; p=0.007) and perceived seriousness of lung cancer (adj-OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05–1.64; p=0.02) were associated with higher preference for lung cancer screening while screening eligibility was not. The concept of "early detection" was the most important driver to have screening while practical obstacles like difficulty travelling to the scan or taking time off work were the least important barriers to screening. Most current or former smokers prefer to undergo screening. Worry about lung cancer and perceived seriousness of the diagnosis are more important drivers for screening preference than eligibility status. Preference for lung cancer screening is high among Australian current and former smokers. Worry about lung cancer and perceived seriousness of the disease are associated with screening preference, while eligibility based on lung cancer risk is not. http://bit.ly/36PZlYA … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- ERJ open research. Volume 6:Issue 1(2020)
- Journal:
- ERJ open research
- Issue:
- Volume 6:Issue 1(2020)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 6, Issue 1 (2020)
- Year:
- 2020
- Volume:
- 6
- Issue:
- 1
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2020-0006-0001-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2020-03-16
- Subjects:
- Respiratory organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals
Respiration -- Periodicals
Respiration
Respiratory organs -- Diseases
Respiratory organs -- Diseases -- Treatment
Respiratory Tract Diseases
Electronic journals
Fulltext
Internet Resources
Periodicals
Periodical
616.2005 - Journal URLs:
- http://openres.ersjournals.com/ ↗
http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/76947 ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1183/23120541.00158-2019 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 2312-0541
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store
- Ingest File:
- 24852.xml