Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning A Systematic Review

被引:25
|
作者
Fukunaga, Mayuko Ito [1 ,2 ,7 ]
Halligan, Kyle [1 ]
Kodela, Jennifer [3 ]
Toomey, Shaun [1 ]
Furtado, Vanessa Fiorini [5 ]
Luckmann, Roger [4 ,7 ]
Han, Paul K. J. [6 ]
Mazor, Kathleen M. [3 ,7 ]
Singh, Sonal [4 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Massachusetts, Med Sch, Div Pulm Allergy & Crit Care Med, Dept Med, Worcester, MA USA
[2] Univ Massachusetts, Med Sch, Div Hlth Informat & Implementat Sci, Dept Populat & Quantitat Hlth Serv, Worcester, MA USA
[3] Univ Massachusetts, Med Sch, Dept Med, Worcester, MA USA
[4] Univ Massachusetts, Med Sch, Dept Family Med & Community Hlth, Worcester, MA USA
[5] Boston Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Hematol & Oncol, Boston, MA 02118 USA
[6] Maine Med Ctr, Res Inst, Ctr Outcomes Res & Evaluat, Portland, ME 04102 USA
[7] Meyers Primary Care Inst, Worcester, MA USA
关键词
cancer screening; decision aids; decision-making; lung neoplasms; shared decision-making; AID; FEASIBILITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.610
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening. RESULTS: After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies). INTERPRETATION: Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools.
引用
收藏
页码:2646 / 2657
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Shared decision-making in underserved populations with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review
    Ben-Zacharia, Aliza Bitton
    Smrtka, Jen
    Kalina, J. Tamar
    Vignos, Megan
    Smith, Stacyann
    MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND RELATED DISORDERS, 2024, 90
  • [42] Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments
    Elwyn, G
    Edwards, A
    Mowle, S
    Wensing, M
    Wilkinson, C
    Kinnersley, P
    Grol, R
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2001, 43 (01) : 5 - 22
  • [43] Telephone-Based Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care
    Heather Bittner Fagan
    Nicole A. Fournakis
    Claudine Jurkovitz
    Anett M. Petrich
    Zugui Zhang
    Nora Katurakes
    Ronald E. Myers
    Journal of Cancer Education, 2020, 35 : 766 - 773
  • [44] LungCARE: Encouraging Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening-a Randomized Trial
    Walsh, Judith M. E.
    Karliner, Leah
    Smith, Ashley
    Leykin, Yan
    Gregorich, Steven E.
    Livaudais-Toman, Jennifer
    Velazquez, Ana I.
    Lowenstein, Margaret
    Kaplan, Celia P.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2023, 38 (14) : 3115 - 3122
  • [45] Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in Primary Health Care A systematic review
    Coronado-Vazquez, Valle
    Canet-Fajas, Carlota
    Teresa Delgado-Marroquin, Maria
    Magallon-Botaya, Rosa
    Romero-Martin, Macarena
    Gomez-Salgado, Juan
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (32) : E21389
  • [46] A systematic review of decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision-making in chronic illnesses: a review protocol
    Wieringa, Thomas H.
    Kunneman, Marleen
    Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene
    Montori, Victor M.
    de Wit, Maartje
    Smets, Ellen M. A.
    Schoonmade, Linda J.
    Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela
    Snoek, Frank J.
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
  • [47] Disparities Associated with Shared Decision-making in Prostate Cancer Screening
    Basin, Michael F.
    Crane, Kelly
    Basnet, Alina
    Chandrasekar, Thenappan
    Shapiro, Oleg
    Jacob, Joseph M.
    Bratslavsky, Gennady
    Goldberg, Hanan
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2023, 9 (06): : 1008 - 1015
  • [48] A systematic review of decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision-making in chronic illnesses: a review protocol
    Thomas H. Wieringa
    Marleen Kunneman
    Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez
    Victor M. Montori
    Maartje de Wit
    Ellen M. A. Smets
    Linda J. Schoonmade
    Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla
    Frank J. Snoek
    Systematic Reviews, 6
  • [49] Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography
    Volk, Robert J.
    Linder, Suzanne K.
    Leal, Viola B.
    Rabius, Vance
    Cinciripini, Paul M.
    Kamath, Geetanjali R.
    Munden, Reginald F.
    Bevers, Therese B.
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2014, 62 : 60 - 63
  • [50] Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: a systematic review
    Boland, Laura
    Graham, Ian D.
    Legare, France
    Lewis, Krystina
    Jull, Janet
    Shephard, Allyson
    Lawson, Margaret L.
    Davis, Alexandra
    Yameogo, Audrey
    Stacey, Dawn
    IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2019, 14 (1)