[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.
CONSORT Flow Diagram
CONSORT Flow Diagram

Participants (n = 20) missing 1-week follow-up assessments completed the 3-month follow-up; participants (n = 24) missing 3-month follow-up assessments completed the 6-month follow-up.

Table 1.  
Characteristics of the Trial Participantsa
Characteristics of the Trial Participantsa
Table 2.  
Differences in Preparation for Decision-Making and Decisional Conflict at the 1-Week Follow-up
Differences in Preparation for Decision-Making and Decisional Conflict at the 1-Week Follow-up
Table 3.  
Correct Responses to Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Measure by Study Group
Correct Responses to Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Measure by Study Group
Table 4.  
Screening Intentions and Behaviors by Study Group
Screening Intentions and Behaviors by Study Group
1.
Khan  N, Afaq  F, Mukhtar  H.  Lifestyle as risk factor for cancer: evidence from human studies.  Cancer Lett. 2010;293(2):133-143. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2009.12.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Siegel  RL, Miller  KD, Jemal  A.  Cancer statistics, 2019.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7-34. doi:10.3322/caac.21551PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Aberle  DR, Adams  AM, Berg  CD,  et al; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team.  Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.  N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395-409. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1102873PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Huo  J, Shen  C, Volk  RJ, Shih  YT.  Use of CT and chest radiography for lung cancer screening before and after publication of screening guidelines: intended and unintended uptake.  JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):439-441. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Bach  PB, Mirkin  JN, Oliver  TK,  et al.  Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review.  JAMA. 2012;307(22):2418-2429. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5521PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Huo  J, Xu  Y, Sheu  T, Volk  RJ, Shih  YT.  Complication rates and downstream medical costs associated with invasive diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities in the community setting.  JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):324-332. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
American Academy of Family Physicians. Clinical Preventive Service Recommendation: Lung Cancer 2013. https://www.aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all/lung-cancer.html. Accessed September 2, 2019.
8.
Detterbeck  FC, Mazzone  PJ, Naidich  DP, Bach  PB.  Screening for lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.  Chest. 2013;143(5)(suppl):e78S-e92S.Google ScholarCrossref
9.
Jaklitsch  MT, Jacobson  FL, Austin  JH,  et al.  The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):33-38. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.05.060PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Lowenstein  LM, Deyter  GMR, Nishi  S, Wang  T, Volk  RJ.  Shared decision-making conversations and smoking cessation interventions: critical components of low-dose CT lung cancer screening programs.  Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7(3):254-271. doi:10.21037/tlcr.2018.05.10PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Mazzone  P, Powell  CA, Arenberg  D,  et al.  Components necessary for high-quality lung cancer screening: American College of Chest Physicians and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.  Chest. 2015;147(2):295-303. doi:10.1378/chest.14-2500PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):330-338. doi:10.7326/M13-2771PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Wender  R, Fontham  ET, Barrera  E  Jr,  et al.  American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(2):107-117. doi:10.3322/caac.21172PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Wood  DE, Kazerooni  E, Baum  SL,  et al; National Comprehension Cancer Network.  Lung cancer screening, version 1.2015: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines.  J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13(1):23-34. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2015.0006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N). 2015. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=274. Accessed September 2, 2019.
16.
Stacey  D, Légaré  F, Lewis  KB.  Patient decision aids to engage adults in treatment or screening decisions.  JAMA. 2017;318(7):657-658. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.10289PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Hoffman  AS, Hempstead  AP, Housten  AJ,  et al.  Using a patient decision aid video to assess current and former smokers’ values about the harms and benefits of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.  MDM Policy Pract. 2018;3(1):2381468318769886. doi:10.1177/2381468318769886PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Volk  RJ, Linder  SK, Leal  VB,  et al.  Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.  Prev Med. 2014;62:60-63. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Joseph  AM, Rothman  AJ, Almirall  D,  et al.  Lung cancer screening and smoking cessation clinical trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197(2):172-182. doi:10.1164/rccm.201705-0909CIPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Lowenstein  LM, Escoto  KH, Leal  VB,  et al.  Randomized trial of a patient-centered decision aid for promoting informed decisions about lung cancer screening: implementation of a PCORI study protocol and lessons learned.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;72:26-34. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2018.07.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Elwyn  G, O’Connor  A, Stacey  D,  et al; International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.  BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417. doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AEPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
National Quality Forum. National Standards for the Certification of Patient Decision Aids: Final Report. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2015. https://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2016/12/National_Standards_for_the_Certification_of_Patient_Decision_Aids.aspx. Accessed September 2, 2019.
23.
Bennett  C, Graham  ID, Kristjansson  E, Kearing  SA, Clay  KF, O’Connor  AM.  Validation of a preparation for decision making scale.  Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(1):130-133. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
O’Connor  AM. Decisional Conflict Scale. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/eval_dcs.html. Accessed September 2, 2019.
25.
Lowenstein  LM, Richards  VF, Leal  VB,  et al.  A brief measure of smokers’ knowledge of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.  Prev Med Rep. 2016;4:351-356. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.07.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
O’Connor  AM, Cranney  A. User manual–acceptability. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/eval_accept.html. Accessed December 16, 2019.
27.
Stacey  D, Légaré  F, Lewis  K,  et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
O’Connor  AM.  Validation of a decisional conflict scale.  Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25-30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Woolson  RF, Clarke  WR.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Biomedical Data. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2002. doi:10.1002/9781118033050
30.
Liang  KY, Zeger SL.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models.  Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13-22. doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.13Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Jiang  J.  Linear and Generalized Linear Mixed Models and Their Applications. New York, NY: Springer; 2007.
32.
Hosmer  DW, Lemenshow  S.  Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2000. doi:10.1002/0471722146
33.
North American Quitline Consortium. http://www.naquitline.org/. Accessed September 2, 2019.
34.
Aberle  DR, Adams  AM, Berg  CD,  et al; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team.  Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(23):1771-1779. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq434PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Schaller  S, Marinova-Schmidt  V, Setzer  M,  et al.  Usefulness of a tailored eHealth service for informal caregivers and professionals in the dementia treatment and care setting: the eHealthMonitor dementia portal.  JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5(2):e47. doi:10.2196/resprot.4354PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Connors  LM, Voian  N, Shi  Y, Lally  RM, Edge  S.  Decision making after BRCA genetic testing: down the road of transition.  Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18(3):E58-E63. doi:10.1188/14.CJON.E58-E63PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Swoboda  CM, Miller  CK, Wills  CE.  Impact of a goal setting and decision support telephone coaching intervention on diet, psychosocial, and decision outcomes among people with type 2 diabetes.  Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(7):1367-1373. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Taylor  KL, Davis  KM, Lamond  T,  et al.  Use and evaluation of a CD-ROM–based decision aid for prostate cancer treatment decisions.  Behav Med. 2010;36(4):130-140. doi:10.1080/08964289.2010.525263PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Lau  YK, Caverly  TJ, Cao  P,  et al.  Evaluation of a personalized, web-based decision aid for lung cancer screening.  Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(6):e125-e129. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.07.027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Mazzone  PJ, Tenenbaum  A, Seeley  M,  et al.  Impact of a lung cancer screening counseling and shared decision-making visit.  Chest. 2017;151(3):572-578. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Reuland  DS, Cubillos  L, Brenner  AT, Harris  RP, Minish  B, Pignone  MP.  A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care.  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):5. doi:10.1186/s12911-018-0582-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Studts  J, Brinker  K, Tannenbaum  S, Byrne  M.  LuCaS DA: a lung cancer screening decision aid to improve screening decisions.  J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(1)(suppl):S577. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2016.11.727Google ScholarCrossref
43.
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S, Fowler  FJ  Jr, Welch  HG.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.  JAMA. 2004;291(1):71-78. doi:10.1001/jama.291.1.71PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Brenner  AT, Malo  TL, Margolis  M,  et al.  Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening.  JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(10):1311-1316. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3054PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
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
    Original Investigation
    Oncology
    January 31, 2020

    Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 2Department of Health Disparities Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 3Department of Radiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
    • 4Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 5North American Quitline Consortium, Phoenix, Arizona
    • 6Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 7Information & Quality Healthcare Inc, Ridgeland, Mississippi
    • 8Houston Department for Health and Human Services, Houston, Texas
    • 9Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    • 10Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
    JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1920362. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20362
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  Does providing a lung cancer screening decision aid through tobacco quitlines improve informed decision-making about lung cancer screening among persons who smoke?

    Findings  In this randomized clinical trial of 516 smokers, use of a patient decision aid compared with standard educational information led to better preparedness to decide about screening, higher reports of feeling informed and clear about screening choices, and greater knowledge of screening benefits and harms.

    Meaning  The findings suggest that decision aids about lung cancer screening can reach large numbers of smokers who are eligible for screening through tobacco quitlines, can inform them about lung cancer screening, and can promote high-quality screening decisions.

    Abstract

    Importance  Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making.

    Objective  To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018.

    Interventions  Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257).

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report.

    Results  Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups.

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713

    Introduction

    Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer in the United States, and smoking is the most important risk factor for developing and dying of lung cancer.1,2 The National Lung Screening Trial3 found 20% fewer lung cancer deaths among current and former heavy smokers screened using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) compared with those screened with standard chest radiography.3 However, screening rates nationally remain low.4 In addition, lung cancer screening with LDCT is not without risks, including radiation exposure from screening and diagnostic imaging and a high false-positive rate leading to subsequent testing, which also is associated with harms.5,6

    Guidelines about lung cancer screening are consistent in emphasizing the importance of patients making an informed decision within the context of receiving smoking cessation services for people who continue to smoke.7-14 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has financially covered lung cancer screening using LDCT since 2015, but the CMS guidelines require a patient counseling and shared decision-making visit using patient decision aids (PDAs) before screening referral.15 The requirement to use PDAs for CMS reimbursement of lung cancer screening is unprecedented. There is a need for PDAs to support informed decision-making about lung cancer screening using LDCT, yet few tools have been developed and none have been evaluated in comparative trials.16

    We undertook a randomized clinical trial (see trial protocol in Supplement 1) of a previously developed PDA video for lung cancer screening17,18 to examine its effect on (1) smokers’ preparation for having a conversation with a health care clinician about lung cancer screening, (2) assuredness about a screening decision, (3) knowledge of lung cancer screening, (4) intentions to be screened, and (5) completion of screening. Our target population included persons seeking smoking cessation services through tobacco quit lines who met screening eligibility criteria based on age and smoking history. Tobacco quit lines were selected as the study setting because smoking cessation is an essential component of lung cancer screening programs,19 and tobacco quit lines provide services to many individuals at high risk of lung cancer.

    Methods
    Study Design

    This randomized clinical trial tested the outcomes of a participant using a PDA about lung cancer screening on the decision to be screened for lung cancer. Participants (clients) were recruited through tobacco quit lines. Baseline, 1-week, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up assessments were conducted. Participants who could not be reached by telephone received the study questionnaires by mail. Recruitment lasted from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and follow-up assessments were completed by May 5, 2017. Participants were compensated $50 after the 1-week assessment and $25 at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. The protocol for this study has been published elsewhere.20 The institutional review board of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, approved the study before data collection (eTable 1 in Supplement 2). Participants provided oral informed consent following a presentation of the study by a research coordinator. This study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline.

    Setting and Participants

    Tobacco quit lines from 13 states participated in the study. Eligible participants were defined as quit line clients (ages 55-77 years) who reported a 30-plus pack-year smoking history and who spoke English. We excluded clients who reported a history of lung cancer. Tobacco quit line staff at the call centers asked new clients who met the age requirements of their interest in learning about lung cancer screening. Interested clients were then given a toll-free telephone number and an email address to contact the research team. Staff at the call centers also mailed recruitment materials to clients who met age requirements and who had contacted the tobacco quit line for smoking cessation services during the previous year. Mode of recruitment was tracked and included as a covariate in the outcome analyses. Research coordinators completed the eligibility assessment via telephone. Demographic data, contact information, and the baseline assessment were collected during the same telephone call.

    Randomization and Interventions

    After completing the baseline assessment, clients within each state quit line were randomized to receive the PDA or standard educational material (EDU) using S-plus, version 8.04 (TIBCO Software Inc) statistical software to generate a randomization schedule with various block sizes. Participants were not blinded to intervention allocation. Study interviewers were blinded to participant allocation at the 3- and 6-month assessments, but not the 1-week follow-up because questions about the PDA were asked of participants in this group. Participants received the PDA intervention materials via mail in DVD format 1 week before the first follow-up assessment; they were also offered a weblink to the video (2 participants requested a weblink). Participants randomized to EDU were mailed a 2-page brochure about lung cancer screening. When needed, research coordinators assisted participants in finding a location where they could view the PDA such as a public library. Participants in both groups were encouraged to discuss screening with a health care clinician, but they were not given specific guidance on locating a screening facility.

    Patient Decision Aid

    The PDA was a 9.5-minute narrated video, Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (details of the development process have been previously described).17,18 In brief, the PDA was developed and refined iteratively with input from multiple stakeholders (eg, patient advocates, tobacco users, primary care clinicians, and tobacco cessation experts). The development process followed the standards of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration,21 and the PDA met National Quality Forum certification criteria for PDAs.22 We updated our PDA to reflect the US Preventive Services Task Force 2014 recommendation12 and eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening from the CMS.15 The narrated PDA included information about (1) eligibility for lung cancer screening and a calculation of tobacco pack-year smoking history, (2) lung cancer epidemiology and risk factors, (3) a video of a patient in a CT scanner, (4) icon arrays to graphically depict the magnitude of mortality reduction, false-positive results, and harms from invasive diagnostic procedures, and (5) radiation exposure depicted within the context of other sources of radiation (eg, a screening mammogram). Smoking cessation was emphasized throughout the PDA.

    Standard Educational Materials

    The EDU material was a 2-page brochure from a lung cancer advocacy group and included structured questions a patient can ask a physician about lung cancer screening. The questions addressed (1) eligibility for screening, (2) the harms and benefits of screening, (3) what to expect from undergoing an LDCT scan, (4) the costs of screening, (5) how to interpret the LDCT results, (6) the importance of smoking cessation, and (7) where to find more information about lung cancer and screening. Benefits and harms were described but no probabilities of outcomes were included. Patient values related to the positive and negative features of lung cancer screening were not addressed (eTable 2 in Supplement 2).

    Outcomes

    The primary outcomes were collected at the 1-week follow-up assessment and included preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict adapted for a decision about lung cancer screening. The Preparation for Decision Making Scale23 is a 10-item measure of the utility of the interventions in preparing the patient to communicate with a health care clinician about a screening decision. Two subscales from the Decisional Conflict Scale24 were also used: Informed Subscale, assessing perceived awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of lung cancer screening, and Values Clarity Subscale, an indicator of the perceived importance of the advantages and disadvantages of lung cancer screening in making a screening decision.

    Secondary outcomes included knowledge of lung cancer screening25 at 1-week, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups, intentions to be screened at the 1-week follow-up, and screening behaviors by the 6-month follow-up. Participants were asked if they scheduled or had a visit with their health care clinician to discuss lung cancer screening, and if they scheduled or had an LDCT scan since enrolling in the study. Acceptability of the PDA was assessed at the 1-week follow-up using questions adapted from the Ottawa Acceptability Measure.26

    Statistical Analysis

    The primary analysis compared the 3 primary outcomes (Preparation for Decision Making Scale, Decisional Conflict Scale Informed subscale, and Decisional Conflict Scale Values Clarity subscale) between the PDA and EDU groups. We controlled overall type I error rate by adjusting for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction and setting the threshold P = .017 (0.05/3).

    Our accrual target was 500 participants, assuming 20% would be lost to follow-up by the 6-month follow-up. We estimated that the PDA group would have a mean Informed Subscale or Values Clarity Subscale score of 25 (lower decisional conflict) whereas the EDU group would have a mean Informed Subscale or Values Subscale of 30.16,24,27,28 A sample size of 190 in each arm provided 80% power to detect a difference in means of 5 using a 2-group t test with a 2-sided significance level of P = .017 assuming a common SD of 15 on the Informed Subscale or Values Subscale.24 For the Preparation for Decision Making Scale, a sample size of 190 in each arm provided 80% power for the study to detect an effect size of 0.332 using a 2-group t test with a 2-sided significance level of .017. We further used thresholds for determining the clinical significance of the primary outcome measures. For Preparation for Decision Making, we used a cut point of 75 or greater based on findings from the most recent Cochrane review27 to indicate participants being well prepared to make decisions after reviewing a PDA. Following the Decisional Conflict Scale manual, scores less than 25 were considered associated with implementing decisions about screening.24

    Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. All analyses were conducted using SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) and S-plus, version 8.04 (TIBCO Software Inc) statistical software. Participant demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline were summarized descriptively.29 The 2-sided 2-group t tests were used to compare the differences of the 3 primary end points between the 2 study groups using intent-to-treat analysis. We tested for heterogeneity of treatment effects by examining the interaction between intervention group and race/ethnicity (black vs white, measured by participant reported race/ethnicity), level of education, and current vs former smoker at the time of study enrollment, using a linear regression model to examine whether or not the PDA had differential effects between participant subgroups. These analyses were conducted adjusting for multiple covariates including age, sex, race, educational level, insurance status, mode of administration and recruitment, and tobacco quit line call center.

    Linear mixed-effects models for longitudinal measures30,31 were used to assess the change in the magnitude of lung cancer screening knowledge over time adjusting for the same covariates. Logistic regression analysis32 was used to assess the relationships between the primary outcome measures, screening intentions, screening behaviors and the intervention, and to assess the interactions between intervention and race/ethnicity with and without adjusting for the covariates. Analyses were conducted without imputation for missing data because missing data rates were low.

    Results

    A total of 746 tobacco quit line clients were assessed for lung cancer screening eligibility (see Figure), of whom 230 were excluded and 516 randomized (259 to PDA and 257 to EDU). Of the 516 clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school educational level or less. Follow-up rates were high: 235 of 259 PDA participants (90.7%) and 233 of 257 EDU participants (90.7%) completed the 1-week assessment, and 218 of 259 PDA participants (84.2%) and 225 of 257 EDU participants (87.5%) completed the 6-month assessment (eFigure in Supplement 2). Participants younger than 65 years were slightly more likely to complete the 1-week follow-up compared with participants 65 years and older (342 of 370 [92.4%] vs 126 of 146 [86.3%]; P = .03). No other differences were observed between participants who did and did not complete the follow-up assessments (eTable 3 in Supplement 2). Participant characteristics were similar between the 2 groups (Table 1).

    Preparation for Decision-Making and Decisional Conflict

    The PDA participants scored higher on the Preparation for Decision Making Scale than did EDU participants, indicating that they were better prepared to make a screening decision (Table 2). Similarly, PDA participants scored lower (better) on the Informed and Values Clarity subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale than did EDU participants. Using cut points for clinical significance (eTable 4 in Supplement 2), 67.4% (153 of 227) of PDA participants were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 48.2% (108 of 224) of EDU participants (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). For the Informed subscale of the Decisional Conflict Scale, 50.0% (117 of 234) of PDA participants compared with 28.3% (66 of 233) of EDU participants had low decisional conflict (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001.) For the Value Clarity subscale, 68.0% (159 of 234) of PDA participants compared with 47.4% (110 of 232) of EDU participants had low decisional conflict (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.6-3.51; P < .001). Tests for an interaction effect of intervention group and race/ethnicity (white or black) were not statistically significant for the primary outcomes.

    Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge

    Knowledge was significantly higher among the PDA participants than among the EDU participants at each follow-up assessment period (Table 3). Knowledge was highest at the 1-week follow-up for PDA participants, with a mean score of 57.5% (95% CI, 54.7%-60.3%) correct responses, but decreased over time. Among the PDA participants, knowledge was significantly lower at the 3-month (44.4%; 95% CI, 41.9%-47.0%) and 6-month (49.9%; 95% CI, 47.5%-52.3%) assessments compared with the 1-week assessment (P < .001). Among the EDU participants, compared with knowledge at the 1-week assessment (40.1%; 95% CI, 37.9%-42.3%), knowledge was significantly lower at the 3-month assessment (35.9%; 95% CI, 33.7%-38.1%) (P = .004) but did not differ from scores at the 6-month follow-up assessment (40.0%; 95% CI, 37.6%-42.4%) (P = .94).

    Screening Intentions and Behaviors

    No group differences in intentions to be screened and screening behaviors were observed (Table 4). At the 1-week assessment, most participants intended to be screened within the next year (70.8% [165 of 233] who received the PDA, and 65.1% [151 of 232] who received EDU) and had scheduled a visit to discuss lung cancer screening with a health care clinician. By the 6-month follow-up, fewer PDA participants (70 of 237 [29.5%]) than EDU participants (89 of 238 [37.4%]) had scheduled LDCT, but the difference was not statistically significant. More than 80% of participants (PDA vs EDU: 85.1% [57 of 67] vs 80.0% [68 of 85]) who scheduled LDCT for lung cancer screening were screened by the 6-month follow-up.

    A significant interaction between intervention group and smoking status on scheduling LDCT was observed. Subgroup analyses indicated that among current smokers, the participants who were randomized to the PDA group (55 of 203 [27.1%]) were less likely to have scheduled LDCT by the 6-month follow-up than were participants randomized to the EDU group (81 of 209 [38.8%]; OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .01). No other interaction effects involving intervention group and smoking status or level of education on the other screening behaviors were observed.

    Acceptability of the PDA

    Only 10 of 228 participants (4.4%) felt that the PDA was too long, whereas 53 of 228 (23.2%) wanted more information. In addition, 198 of 227 participants (87.2%) indicated that the PDA included enough information to help a person make a decision about lung cancer screening.

    Discussion

    In this randomized clinical trial of a PDA for lung cancer screening, smokers who received the PDA were better prepared to make a screening decision, reported lower decisional conflict, and had greater knowledge of the harms and benefits of screening compared with smokers who received EDU. The number of participants who intended to be screened within the next year was high and did not differ between the groups. Similarly, screening behaviors did not differ between the 2 groups, with nearly 2 in 3 participants having scheduled a visit with a health care clinician to discuss screening by the 6-month follow-up. These findings suggest that participants who received EDU were making decisions about lung cancer screening while feeling less prepared, being less clear about their values related to the harms and benefits, and having poorer knowledge of the harms and benefits than participants who received the PDA. Of note, the participants in this study were similar to clients served by tobacco quit lines nationally based on statistics reported by the North American Quitline Consortium33 and to participants in the National Lung Screening Trial based on age and pack-year smoking history.34

    Approximately two-thirds (67.4%) of the participants in this study who received the PDA were well prepared to make screening decisions as a result of viewing the PDA compared with approximately one-half (48.2%) of the participants who received the EDU, a finding that is similar to or exceeds data from other studies of PDAs.35-38 Similarly, 50.0% to 68.0% of the PDA participants had low decisional conflict about their screening choice, which was approximately 20 percentage points better than that for participants who received the EDU. The magnitude of the differences between the 2 groups on the Decisional Conflict Scale Informed and Values Clarity subscales also exceeded the difference reported in the most recent Cochrane Systematic Review27 for PDAs delivered in preparation for a consultation with a health care clinician.

    Participants who received the PDA had greater knowledge of lung cancer screening than did those who received the EDU, and these differences were maintained at each follow-up assessment. Of interest, approximately 1 in 4 participants wanted more information from the PDA; this highlights the importance of a conversation with a health care clinician to probe patients’ information needs and misconceptions related to lung cancer screening. Knowledge scores decreased by the 6-month follow-up assessment, suggesting that a refresher might be needed when the screening decision is reconsidered the following year for patients who have normal screening findings. Currently, CMS makes additional patient counseling and shared decision-making visits optional for subsequent annual screenings for lung cancer.15

    Few studies have examined the effect of PDAs on lung cancer screening decision-making,18,39-41 and only 1 study, to our knowledge, used a comparison group.42 All studies18,39-41 were conducted in the United States and confirm our findings about increased knowledge and reduced decisional conflict18,39 as a result of receiving the PDA. The number of participants who intended to be screened for lung cancer was high in our study compared with other studies of primary care patients.18,39-41 Screening rates in this study were higher than national estimates4 but were lower than screening rates among referred patients in the pulmonary care setting,40 although few studies have examined this issue. Although we observed some differences in screening intentions and behaviors between PDA and EDU participants, future research with larger samples are needed to clarify the effect of PDAs on lung cancer screening behaviors. We would not necessarily expect a PDA to affect screening rates because enthusiasm for cancer screening in general is high.43 Our findings suggest that targeting smokers who are already motivated to quit smoking is an effective approach to increasing screening rates.

    Limitations

    This study has limitations. Participants had to express an interest in lung cancer screening when asked by quit line call staff, and they had to contact the research team about participation. We were unable to explore the reasons why other smokers were not interested. For participants who had an appointment with a health care clinician to discuss lung cancer screening, we do not have information about the quality of the decision-making process or completion of screening after the 6-month follow-up. Screening behaviors were based on self-report.

    Conclusions

    A PDA delivered to persons seeking services from tobacco quit lines improved the quality of lung cancer screening decisions compared with EDU. These improvements were consistent with recommendations of professional societies regarding smokers making informed decisions about lung cancer screening. The PDA had no differential effect on intentions to be screened or completion of screening. The PDA was meant to support but not replace a conversation with a health care clinician because there is a crucial need to improve the quality of these conversations.44 Disseminating the PDA through tobacco quit lines could reach a large number of potentially eligible smokers in the United States. Carefully addressing the role of tobacco quit lines in distributing PDA support for lung cancer screening, given variable quit line funding, is necessary for broader dissemination and greater effect of the intervention.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: November 20, 2019.

    Published: January 31, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20362

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Volk RJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Robert J. Volk, PhD, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St, Unit 1444, Houston, TX 77030 (bvolk@mdanderson.org).

    Author Contributions: Dr Volk had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Volk, Lowenstein, Leal, Escoto, Munden, Rabius, Cinciripini, Lin, Esparza.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Volk, Lowenstein, Leal, Cantor, Munden, Bailey, Cinciripini, Lin, Housten, Luckett, Godoy, Bevers.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Volk, Lowenstein, Leal, Cinciripini, Lin, Esparza.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Volk, Lowenstein, Escoto, Cantor, Munden, Rabius, Bailey, Cinciripini, Housten, Luckett, Godoy, Bevers.

    Statistical analysis: Lin.

    Obtained funding: Volk.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Escoto, Munden, Rabius, Bailey, Cinciripini, Housten, Luckett.

    Supervision: Volk, Leal, Godoy.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Volk reported receiving research support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center during the conduct of the study. Dr Lowenstein reported receiving grants from PCORI, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute, and the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Ms Leal reported receiving grants from PCORI, the National Cancer Institute, and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Munden reported receiving stock options from Optellum Ltd and preferred stock from TheraBionic outside the submitted work.

    Funding/Support: This study was supported by award CER-1306-03385 from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; award P30CA016672 from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (Drs Volk, Cantor, and Lin) that used the Biostatistics Resource Group, Clinical Protocol and Data Management, and Shared Decision Making Core, and a grant from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment (Drs Volk and Cantor) that supported the Shared Decision Making Collaborative and Center for Community-Engaged Translational Research.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

    Disclaimer: The statements presented in this work are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.

    Additional Contributions: Vincent Richards, MBA, Andrea Palmieri Hempstead, MPH, and Rhodrick Haralson, BS, managed data collection for this project. Lianne Jacobs, MPH, assisted with preparation of this report and required tables. Weiguo He, PhD, managed the project statistical database and Gary Deyter, PhD, edited the manuscript. All were employed as research staff and thus received compensation. The tobacco quitline call centers helped facilitate this project through their states.

    References
    1.
    Khan  N, Afaq  F, Mukhtar  H.  Lifestyle as risk factor for cancer: evidence from human studies.  Cancer Lett. 2010;293(2):133-143. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2009.12.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Siegel  RL, Miller  KD, Jemal  A.  Cancer statistics, 2019.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7-34. doi:10.3322/caac.21551PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Aberle  DR, Adams  AM, Berg  CD,  et al; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team.  Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.  N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395-409. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1102873PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Huo  J, Shen  C, Volk  RJ, Shih  YT.  Use of CT and chest radiography for lung cancer screening before and after publication of screening guidelines: intended and unintended uptake.  JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):439-441. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Bach  PB, Mirkin  JN, Oliver  TK,  et al.  Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review.  JAMA. 2012;307(22):2418-2429. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5521PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Huo  J, Xu  Y, Sheu  T, Volk  RJ, Shih  YT.  Complication rates and downstream medical costs associated with invasive diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities in the community setting.  JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):324-332. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    American Academy of Family Physicians. Clinical Preventive Service Recommendation: Lung Cancer 2013. https://www.aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all/lung-cancer.html. Accessed September 2, 2019.
    8.
    Detterbeck  FC, Mazzone  PJ, Naidich  DP, Bach  PB.  Screening for lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.  Chest. 2013;143(5)(suppl):e78S-e92S.Google ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Jaklitsch  MT, Jacobson  FL, Austin  JH,  et al.  The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):33-38. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.05.060PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Lowenstein  LM, Deyter  GMR, Nishi  S, Wang  T, Volk  RJ.  Shared decision-making conversations and smoking cessation interventions: critical components of low-dose CT lung cancer screening programs.  Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7(3):254-271. doi:10.21037/tlcr.2018.05.10PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Mazzone  P, Powell  CA, Arenberg  D,  et al.  Components necessary for high-quality lung cancer screening: American College of Chest Physicians and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.  Chest. 2015;147(2):295-303. doi:10.1378/chest.14-2500PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):330-338. doi:10.7326/M13-2771PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Wender  R, Fontham  ET, Barrera  E  Jr,  et al.  American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(2):107-117. doi:10.3322/caac.21172PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Wood  DE, Kazerooni  E, Baum  SL,  et al; National Comprehension Cancer Network.  Lung cancer screening, version 1.2015: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines.  J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13(1):23-34. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2015.0006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N). 2015. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=274. Accessed September 2, 2019.
    16.
    Stacey  D, Légaré  F, Lewis  KB.  Patient decision aids to engage adults in treatment or screening decisions.  JAMA. 2017;318(7):657-658. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.10289PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Hoffman  AS, Hempstead  AP, Housten  AJ,  et al.  Using a patient decision aid video to assess current and former smokers’ values about the harms and benefits of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.  MDM Policy Pract. 2018;3(1):2381468318769886. doi:10.1177/2381468318769886PubMedGoogle Scholar
    18.
    Volk  RJ, Linder  SK, Leal  VB,  et al.  Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.  Prev Med. 2014;62:60-63. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Joseph  AM, Rothman  AJ, Almirall  D,  et al.  Lung cancer screening and smoking cessation clinical trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197(2):172-182. doi:10.1164/rccm.201705-0909CIPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Lowenstein  LM, Escoto  KH, Leal  VB,  et al.  Randomized trial of a patient-centered decision aid for promoting informed decisions about lung cancer screening: implementation of a PCORI study protocol and lessons learned.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;72:26-34. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2018.07.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Elwyn  G, O’Connor  A, Stacey  D,  et al; International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.  BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417. doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AEPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    National Quality Forum. National Standards for the Certification of Patient Decision Aids: Final Report. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2015. https://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2016/12/National_Standards_for_the_Certification_of_Patient_Decision_Aids.aspx. Accessed September 2, 2019.
    23.
    Bennett  C, Graham  ID, Kristjansson  E, Kearing  SA, Clay  KF, O’Connor  AM.  Validation of a preparation for decision making scale.  Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(1):130-133. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    O’Connor  AM. Decisional Conflict Scale. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/eval_dcs.html. Accessed September 2, 2019.
    25.
    Lowenstein  LM, Richards  VF, Leal  VB,  et al.  A brief measure of smokers’ knowledge of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.  Prev Med Rep. 2016;4:351-356. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.07.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    O’Connor  AM, Cranney  A. User manual–acceptability. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/eval_accept.html. Accessed December 16, 2019.
    27.
    Stacey  D, Légaré  F, Lewis  K,  et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5PubMedGoogle Scholar
    28.
    O’Connor  AM.  Validation of a decisional conflict scale.  Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25-30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Woolson  RF, Clarke  WR.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Biomedical Data. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2002. doi:10.1002/9781118033050
    30.
    Liang  KY, Zeger SL.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models.  Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13-22. doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.13Google ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Jiang  J.  Linear and Generalized Linear Mixed Models and Their Applications. New York, NY: Springer; 2007.
    32.
    Hosmer  DW, Lemenshow  S.  Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2000. doi:10.1002/0471722146
    33.
    North American Quitline Consortium. http://www.naquitline.org/. Accessed September 2, 2019.
    34.
    Aberle  DR, Adams  AM, Berg  CD,  et al; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team.  Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(23):1771-1779. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq434PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Schaller  S, Marinova-Schmidt  V, Setzer  M,  et al.  Usefulness of a tailored eHealth service for informal caregivers and professionals in the dementia treatment and care setting: the eHealthMonitor dementia portal.  JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5(2):e47. doi:10.2196/resprot.4354PubMedGoogle Scholar
    36.
    Connors  LM, Voian  N, Shi  Y, Lally  RM, Edge  S.  Decision making after BRCA genetic testing: down the road of transition.  Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18(3):E58-E63. doi:10.1188/14.CJON.E58-E63PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Swoboda  CM, Miller  CK, Wills  CE.  Impact of a goal setting and decision support telephone coaching intervention on diet, psychosocial, and decision outcomes among people with type 2 diabetes.  Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(7):1367-1373. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Taylor  KL, Davis  KM, Lamond  T,  et al.  Use and evaluation of a CD-ROM–based decision aid for prostate cancer treatment decisions.  Behav Med. 2010;36(4):130-140. doi:10.1080/08964289.2010.525263PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Lau  YK, Caverly  TJ, Cao  P,  et al.  Evaluation of a personalized, web-based decision aid for lung cancer screening.  Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(6):e125-e129. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.07.027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Mazzone  PJ, Tenenbaum  A, Seeley  M,  et al.  Impact of a lung cancer screening counseling and shared decision-making visit.  Chest. 2017;151(3):572-578. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Reuland  DS, Cubillos  L, Brenner  AT, Harris  RP, Minish  B, Pignone  MP.  A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care.  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):5. doi:10.1186/s12911-018-0582-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Studts  J, Brinker  K, Tannenbaum  S, Byrne  M.  LuCaS DA: a lung cancer screening decision aid to improve screening decisions.  J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(1)(suppl):S577. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2016.11.727Google ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S, Fowler  FJ  Jr, Welch  HG.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.  JAMA. 2004;291(1):71-78. doi:10.1001/jama.291.1.71PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Brenner  AT, Malo  TL, Margolis  M,  et al.  Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening.  JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(10):1311-1316. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3054PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×