[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Views 197
Citations 0
Comment & Response
January 2019

Shared Decision Making Rarely Happens for Lung Cancer Screening—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
  • 2Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(1):122-123. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6986

In Reply We thank Dobler for her interest in our article1 and for amplifying a key point in our discussion. As she notes in her letter and in a recent commentary,2 patient preferences are influenced by practice setting, timing, and framing of discussions with health care providers along the care continuum. We agree that a tertiary low-dose computed tomography screening program is not an optimal context for an initial discussion of the trade-offs involved in lung cancer screening. Most importantly, as Dobler states, absent a basic initial conversation about the benefits and harms of screening, patients will likely assume that a referral to a lung cancer screening program is a referral for the screening procedure itself, rather than to decide whether screening is right for them. We reiterate that this view is supported by studies showing that although 95% of patients receiving decision support in a tertiary screening context chose screening,3 only 50% of patients viewing a screening decision aid in a primary care context indicated a preference for screening.4

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words