TY - JOUR
T1 - Patient impressions of the impact of comorbidities on lung cancer screening benefits and harms
T2 - A qualitative analysis
AU - Kale, Minal S.
AU - Diefenbach, Michael
AU - Masse, Sybil
AU - Kee, Dustin
AU - Schnur, Julie
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - Objective: To learn about the beliefs and preferences of lung cancer screening (LCS) among patients undergoing LCS decision making. Specifically, we investigated how their comorbidity influences their interest in screening. The goal was to inform shared-decision making discussions around the role of comorbidities and LCS. Methods: We recruited English-speaking LCS-eligible individuals with comorbidities from general medicine outpatient clinics at an academic medical center in New York City. The interviewers followed a semi-structured interview guide and all interviews were professionally transcribed. Study investigators independently conducted thematic analysis of de-identified transcripts; after coding, investigators discussed and agreed upon identified themes (Jacobs et al., 1999 [3]). This study was IRB-approved. Results: We achieved thematic saturation after 15 interviews. We identified the following themes: 1) Comorbidities were perceived as unrelated to LCS decision-making, 2) Lung cancer knowledge is valuable and worth any risks, 3) No matter what the guidelines or my providers say, the LCS decision is up to me. Conclusion/practice implications: Implications of these findings are that conversations where providers recommend against LCS may likely require time, patient education, and appreciation of the patient perspective.
AB - Objective: To learn about the beliefs and preferences of lung cancer screening (LCS) among patients undergoing LCS decision making. Specifically, we investigated how their comorbidity influences their interest in screening. The goal was to inform shared-decision making discussions around the role of comorbidities and LCS. Methods: We recruited English-speaking LCS-eligible individuals with comorbidities from general medicine outpatient clinics at an academic medical center in New York City. The interviewers followed a semi-structured interview guide and all interviews were professionally transcribed. Study investigators independently conducted thematic analysis of de-identified transcripts; after coding, investigators discussed and agreed upon identified themes (Jacobs et al., 1999 [3]). This study was IRB-approved. Results: We achieved thematic saturation after 15 interviews. We identified the following themes: 1) Comorbidities were perceived as unrelated to LCS decision-making, 2) Lung cancer knowledge is valuable and worth any risks, 3) No matter what the guidelines or my providers say, the LCS decision is up to me. Conclusion/practice implications: Implications of these findings are that conversations where providers recommend against LCS may likely require time, patient education, and appreciation of the patient perspective.
KW - Comorbidities
KW - Lung cancer screening
KW - Qualitative
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85144354457&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2022.107590
DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2022.107590
M3 - Article
C2 - 36528981
AN - SCOPUS:85144354457
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 108
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
M1 - 107590
ER -