Affiliations
AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
Understanding barriers to lung cancer screening in primary careJulia M Coughlin et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May.
. 2020 May;12(5):2536-2544. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2020.03.66. Authors Julia M Coughlin 1 , Yanyu Zang 2 , Samantha Terranella 1 , Gillian Alex 3 , Justin Karush 3 4 , Nicole Geissen 3 5 , Gary W Chmielewski 3 6 , Andrew T Arndt 3 , Michael J Liptay 3 , Laura J Zimmermann 7 8 , Linda Dowling 3 , Ashley Levitan 3 , Christopher W Seder 3 AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
AbstractBackground: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan for lung cancer screening is underutilized. Studies suggest that up to one-third of providers do not know the current lung cancer screening guidelines. Thus, identifying the barriers to utilization of LDCT scan is essential.
Methods: Primary care providers in three different healthcare settings in the United States were surveyed to assess provider knowledge of LDCT scan screening criteria, lung cancer screening practices, and barriers to the utilization of LDCT scan screening. Fisher's Exact, Chi-Squared, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare provider responses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between provider characteristics and the likelihood of utilizing LDCT scan for lung cancer screening.
Results: The survey was sent to 614 providers, with a 15.7% response rate. Overall, 29.2% of providers report never ordering LDCT scans for eligible patients. Providers practicing at a community or academic hospital more frequently order LDCT scans than those practicing at a safety net hospital. Academic- and community-based providers received a significantly higher mean knowledge score than safety net-based providers [academic 6.84 (SD 1.33), community 6.72 (SD 1.46), safety net 5.85 (SD 1.38); P<0.01]. Overall, only 6.2% of respondents correctly identified all six Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eligibility criteria when challenged with three incorrect criteria. Common barriers to utilization of LDCT scan included failure of the electronic medical record (EMR) to notify providers of eligible patients (54.7%), patient refusal (37%), perceived high false-positive rate leading to unnecessary procedures (18.9%), provider time constraints (16.8%), and lack of insurance coverage (13.7%).
Conclusions: Provider knowledge of lung cancer screening guidelines varies, perhaps contributing to underutilization of LDCT scan for lung cancer screening. Improved provider education at safety net hospitals and improving EMR-based best practice alerts may improve the rate of lung cancer screening.
Keywords: CT scan; Lung cancer; screening.
2020 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statementConflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2020.03.66). CWS serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Journal of Thoracic Disease from Jul 2017 to Jun 2021. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
FiguresFigure 1
Barriers to the utilization of…
Figure 1
Barriers to the utilization of low dose CT scan. (A) Barriers to the…
Figure 1Barriers to the utilization of low dose CT scan. (A) Barriers to the utilization of low-dose CT scan; (B) barriers to the utilization of low-dose CT scan continued. USPSTF, United States Preventive Services Task Force; EMR, electronic medical record.
Similar articlesLewis JA, Petty WJ, Tooze JA, Miller DP, Chiles C, Miller AA, Bellinger C, Weaver KE. Lewis JA, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Apr;24(4):664-70. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1241. Epub 2015 Jan 22. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015. PMID: 25613118 Free PMC article.
Lewis JA, Chen H, Weaver KE, Spalluto LB, Sandler KL, Horn L, Dittus RS, Massion PP, Roumie CL, Tindle HA. Lewis JA, et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Apr 1;17(4):339-346. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7101. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019. PMID: 30959463
Kota KJ, Ji S, Bover-Manderski MT, Delnevo CD, Steinberg MB. Kota KJ, et al. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022 Apr 22;3(7):100331. doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2022.100331. eCollection 2022 Jul. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022. PMID: 35769389 Free PMC article.
Shieh Y, Bohnenkamp M. Shieh Y, et al. Chest. 2017 Jul;152(1):204-209. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.03.019. Epub 2017 Mar 21. Chest. 2017. PMID: 28336485 Review.
Murugan VA, Kalra MK, Rehani M, Digumarthy SR. Murugan VA, et al. J Thorac Imaging. 2015 Sep;30(5):283-9. doi: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000150. J Thorac Imaging. 2015. PMID: 25856411 Review.
Carter-Bawa L, Walsh LE, Schofield E, Williamson TJ, Hamann HA, Ostroff JS. Carter-Bawa L, et al. Nurs Res. 2023 Jan-Feb 01;72(1):3-11. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000629. Epub 2022 Oct 16. Nurs Res. 2023. PMID: 36260526 Free PMC article.
Thuppal S, Hendren JR, Colle J, Sapra A, Bhandari P, Rahman R, Krus-Johnston A, Hoffman MR, Foray N, Hazelrigg S, Crabtree T. Thuppal S, et al. Ann Fam Med. 2023 Mar-Apr;21(2):119-124. doi: 10.1370/afm.2905. Ann Fam Med. 2023. PMID: 36973046 Free PMC article.
Tsiligianni I, Christodoulakis A, Monastirioti A, Mavroudis D, Agelaki S. Tsiligianni I, et al. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2024 Apr 29;34(1):5. doi: 10.1038/s41533-024-00359-w. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2024. PMID: 38684681 Free PMC article.
Liu C, Jiang J, Luo J, Zhang Y, Yang C, Shi J. Liu C, et al. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2025 Apr;398(4):4633-4643. doi: 10.1007/s00210-024-03574-x. Epub 2024 Nov 9. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2025. PMID: 39521757
Zarinshenas R, Amini A, Mambetsariev I, Abuali T, Fricke J, Ladbury C, Salgia R. Zarinshenas R, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 3;15(5):1595. doi: 10.3390/cancers15051595. Cancers (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36900386 Free PMC article. Review.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3