search
Back to results

Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening (mPATH-Lung)

Primary Purpose

Lung Cancer

Status
Active
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
mPATH-Lung
Lung health video
Sponsored by
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional screening trial for Lung Cancer focused on measuring Mass screening, Early detection of cancer, Digital health interventions, Decision making, computer assisted

Eligibility Criteria

50 Years - 77 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesAccepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Meet the Medicare criteria for lung cancer screening, as updated in February 2022:

    • Age 50 - 77 years
    • Smoked at least 20 pack years
    • Current smoker or quit smoking within the past 15 years
  • Be scheduled to see a primary care provider within the health network in the next 3-4 weeks
  • Have a patient portal account or cellphone number listed in the electronic health record

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients flagged as needing a language interpreter in the electronic health record (electronic messages and intervention is delivered in English only).

  • Those for whom lung cancer screening would be inappropriate:

    • Prior history of lung cancer
    • Chest CT within the last 12 months
    • Those with medical conditions predicting shorter life expectancy
    • Patients whose home address is not within the state of North Carolina. (Due to telehealth guidelines)

Sites / Locations

  • University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill
  • Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Placebo Comparator

Arm Label

mPATH-Lung

Usual care (CONTROL)

Arm Description

Participants randomized to the mPATH arm will complete a self-survey and a brief video decision aid, and then invites them to estimate their personal risks and benefits of screening by completing 8 survey items needed to calculate their predicted risk of developing lung cancer based on the validated Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model 2012.

Participants randomized to the control arm will see an animated video about exercise for lung health based on recommendations from the European Lung Foundation. They will not be offered the opportunity to estimate their predicted benefits and harms of screening or to request a lung cancer screening visit.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Electronic health record-verified completion of a lung cancer screening CT scan
Completed any chest CT within 16 weeks of study randomization, as determined by electronic health record review

Secondary Outcome Measures

LCS Screening decision
Patient intention to receive LCS as measured by a survey item in the mPATH-Lung group only
Proportion of patients with LCS clinic visits scheduled
The proportion of patients in each arm who have scheduled a LCS clinic visit, whether or not the visit is completed
Proportion of patients with LCS clinic visits completed
The proportion of patients in each arm who have completed a LCS clinic visit
Proportion of patients with LCS scans ordered
The proportion of patients in each arm for whom a LCS scan was ordered
LCS clinic referral requested through mPATH
The proportion of patients in mPATH-Lung arm who completed a referral form with request for appointment.
Lung cancer screening test results
The results of a completed lung cancer screening CT, reported using the Lung-RADS classification
Number of LCS false positives
A Lung-RADS 3 or 4 result with a negative completed work-up for lung cancer or no diagnosis of lung cancer within 12 months of the scan.
Invasive procedures following LCS scan
The proportion of patients in each arm who undergo an invasive procedure following a LCS scan
Proportion of patients with complications following LCS
The proportion of patients in each arm who experience a complication from an invasive procedure following a LCS scan
Number of diagnosed lung cancers
Number of diagnosed lung cancers (detected by screening or other) within 16 months of randomization
How diagnosed lung cancers were detected
Proportion of patients who had lung cancers detected related to screening or incidentally.
Stage of lung cancers diagnosed
Stage of lung cancers diagnosed
Overscreening
The proportion of patients with screen diagnosed lung cancer who are deemed too ill for potentially curative surgery by blinded chart review.
Reach of digital outreach strategy
The proportion of patients sent a digital invitation who complete the eligibility questions on the study website.
Completion of mPATH-Lung program
The proportion of patients randomized to mPATH-Lung who complete the mPATH-Lung program to the point of indicating their screening decision.

Full Information

First Posted
August 30, 2019
Last Updated
October 16, 2023
Sponsor
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Collaborators
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, National Cancer Institute (NCI)
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT04083859
Brief Title
Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening
Acronym
mPATH-Lung
Official Title
A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial of a Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening: mPATH-Lung (Mobile Patient Technology for Health-Lung)
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
October 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Active, not recruiting
Study Start Date
January 1, 2022 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
September 30, 2023 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
September 2024 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Collaborators
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, National Cancer Institute (NCI)

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
mPATH-Lung (mobile Patient Technology for Health - Lung) is an innovative digital outreach program that identifies patients who qualify for lung cancer screening and helps them get screened. The study will: 1) Determine the effect of mPATH-Lung on receipt of lung cancer screening in a pragmatic randomized-controlled trial conducted with primary care patients in two large health networks, 2) Elucidate the drivers of patients' screening decisions and screening behavior; and 3) Explore implementation outcomes that will impact the sustainability and dissemination of mPATH-Lung using program data, surveys, and interviews. This project will determine how mPATH-Lung affects patients' screening decisions and their completion of screening.
Detailed Description
Primary Objective: Determine the effectiveness of mPATH-Lung on receipt of LCS in a randomized pragmatic clinical trial of 1318 patients recruited from two large health networks, Wake Forest Baptist Health and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Secondary Objectives: Elucidate the drivers of patients' decisions to receive or forgo LCS through a values clarification exercise embedded within mPATH-Lung and supplemental semi-structured interviews of at least 50 patients. Assess several critical implementation outcomes (reach, acceptability, and appropriateness) to inform the sustainability and scalability of mPATH-Lung across diverse primary care settings

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Lung Cancer
Keywords
Mass screening, Early detection of cancer, Digital health interventions, Decision making, computer assisted

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Screening
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
InvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
28410 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
mPATH-Lung
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants randomized to the mPATH arm will complete a self-survey and a brief video decision aid, and then invites them to estimate their personal risks and benefits of screening by completing 8 survey items needed to calculate their predicted risk of developing lung cancer based on the validated Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model 2012.
Arm Title
Usual care (CONTROL)
Arm Type
Placebo Comparator
Arm Description
Participants randomized to the control arm will see an animated video about exercise for lung health based on recommendations from the European Lung Foundation. They will not be offered the opportunity to estimate their predicted benefits and harms of screening or to request a lung cancer screening visit.
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
mPATH-Lung
Intervention Description
A web-based program that determines patients eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS), informs them of LCS, presents them with personalized risk-benefit information, helps them make a screening decision, and helps them schedule a LCS clinic appointment.
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Lung health video
Intervention Description
Web-based video about guideline recommended exercise for lung health
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Electronic health record-verified completion of a lung cancer screening CT scan
Description
Completed any chest CT within 16 weeks of study randomization, as determined by electronic health record review
Time Frame
Within 16 weeks of enrollment
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
LCS Screening decision
Description
Patient intention to receive LCS as measured by a survey item in the mPATH-Lung group only
Time Frame
Up to 16 weeks after day of enrollment
Title
Proportion of patients with LCS clinic visits scheduled
Description
The proportion of patients in each arm who have scheduled a LCS clinic visit, whether or not the visit is completed
Time Frame
16 weeks
Title
Proportion of patients with LCS clinic visits completed
Description
The proportion of patients in each arm who have completed a LCS clinic visit
Time Frame
16 weeks
Title
Proportion of patients with LCS scans ordered
Description
The proportion of patients in each arm for whom a LCS scan was ordered
Time Frame
16 weeks
Title
LCS clinic referral requested through mPATH
Description
The proportion of patients in mPATH-Lung arm who completed a referral form with request for appointment.
Time Frame
16 weeks
Title
Lung cancer screening test results
Description
The results of a completed lung cancer screening CT, reported using the Lung-RADS classification
Time Frame
16 weeks
Title
Number of LCS false positives
Description
A Lung-RADS 3 or 4 result with a negative completed work-up for lung cancer or no diagnosis of lung cancer within 12 months of the scan.
Time Frame
1 year
Title
Invasive procedures following LCS scan
Description
The proportion of patients in each arm who undergo an invasive procedure following a LCS scan
Time Frame
1 year
Title
Proportion of patients with complications following LCS
Description
The proportion of patients in each arm who experience a complication from an invasive procedure following a LCS scan
Time Frame
1 year
Title
Number of diagnosed lung cancers
Description
Number of diagnosed lung cancers (detected by screening or other) within 16 months of randomization
Time Frame
16 months after randomization
Title
How diagnosed lung cancers were detected
Description
Proportion of patients who had lung cancers detected related to screening or incidentally.
Time Frame
16 months after randomization
Title
Stage of lung cancers diagnosed
Description
Stage of lung cancers diagnosed
Time Frame
16 months after randomization
Title
Overscreening
Description
The proportion of patients with screen diagnosed lung cancer who are deemed too ill for potentially curative surgery by blinded chart review.
Time Frame
1 year
Title
Reach of digital outreach strategy
Description
The proportion of patients sent a digital invitation who complete the eligibility questions on the study website.
Time Frame
16 weeks
Title
Completion of mPATH-Lung program
Description
The proportion of patients randomized to mPATH-Lung who complete the mPATH-Lung program to the point of indicating their screening decision.
Time Frame
16 weeks

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
50 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
77 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Meet the Medicare criteria for lung cancer screening, as updated in February 2022: Age 50 - 77 years Smoked at least 20 pack years Current smoker or quit smoking within the past 15 years Be scheduled to see a primary care provider within the health network in the next 3-4 weeks Have a patient portal account or cellphone number listed in the electronic health record Exclusion Criteria: Patients flagged as needing a language interpreter in the electronic health record (electronic messages and intervention is delivered in English only). Those for whom lung cancer screening would be inappropriate: Prior history of lung cancer Chest CT within the last 12 months Those with medical conditions predicting shorter life expectancy Patients whose home address is not within the state of North Carolina. (Due to telehealth guidelines)
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
David P Miller, MD, MS
Organizational Affiliation
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill
City
Chapel Hill
State/Province
North Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
27599
Country
United States
Facility Name
Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
City
Winston-Salem
State/Province
North Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
27101
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Yes
IPD Sharing Plan Description
We will share de-identified individual participant data that underlie our published or presented results with researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal. Use of the data will be limited to achieve the aims in their submitted proposal. To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.
IPD Sharing Time Frame
We will make the de-identified data available within one year of the publication of the relevant results. Data will remain available for at least 5 years from the last publication of results.
IPD Sharing Access Criteria
Researchers desiring data access must provide a methodologically sound proposal to the study principal investigator. Use of the data will be limited to achieve the aims in their submitted proposal. To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.
Citations:
Citation
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2019. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2019.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21714641
Citation
National Lung Screening Trial Research Team; Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. Epub 2011 Jun 29.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24037918
Citation
Pinsky PF, Church TR, Izmirlian G, Kramer BS. The National Lung Screening Trial: results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology. Cancer. 2013 Nov 15;119(22):3976-83. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28326. Epub 2013 Aug 26.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24378917
Citation
Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Mar 4;160(5):330-8. doi: 10.7326/M13-2771.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23315954
Citation
Wender R, Fontham ET, Barrera E Jr, Colditz GA, Church TR, Ettinger DS, Etzioni R, Flowers CR, Gazelle GS, Kelsey DK, LaMonte SJ, Michaelson JS, Oeffinger KC, Shih YC, Sullivan DC, Travis W, Walter L, Wolf AM, Brawley OW, Smith RA. American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013 Mar-Apr;63(2):107-17. doi: 10.3322/caac.21172. Epub 2013 Jan 11.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22710039
Citation
Jaklitsch MT, Jacobson FL, Austin JH, Field JK, Jett JR, Keshavjee S, MacMahon H, Mulshine JL, Munden RF, Salgia R, Strauss GM, Swanson SJ, Travis WD, Sugarbaker DJ. 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 Jul;144(1):33-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.05.060.
Results Reference
background
Citation
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Final National Coverage Determination on 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 November 10, 2015.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28152136
Citation
Jemal A, Fedewa SA. Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography in the United States-2010 to 2015. JAMA Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;3(9):1278-1281. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6416.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22610500
Citation
Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, Azzoli CG, Berry DA, Brawley OW, Byers T, Colditz GA, Gould MK, Jett JR, Sabichi AL, Smith-Bindman R, Wood DE, Qaseem A, Detterbeck FC. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012 Jun 13;307(22):2418-29. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.5521. Erratum In: JAMA. 2012 Oct 3;308(13):1324. JAMA. 2013 Jun 5;309(21):2212.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24322781
Citation
Harris RP, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, Barclay C, Vu MB, Kistler CE, Golin CE, DeFrank JT, Brewer NT. The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Feb 1;174(2):281-5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12745. Erratum In: JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):484.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23208167
Citation
Veronesi G, Maisonneuve P, Bellomi M, Rampinelli C, Durli I, Bertolotti R, Spaggiari L. Estimating overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Dec 4;157(11):776-84. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-11-201212040-00005.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16757691
Citation
Patz EF Jr. Lung cancer screening, overdiagnosis bias, and reevaluation of the Mayo Lung Project. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Jun 7;98(11):724-5. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj226. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23863051
Citation
Kovalchik SA, Tammemagi M, Berg CD, Caporaso NE, Riley TL, Korch M, Silvestri GA, Chaturvedi AK, Katki HA. Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 18;369(3):245-254. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301851.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24272830
Citation
Brenner A, Howard K, Lewis C, Sheridan S, Crutchfield T, Hawley S, Reuland D, Kistler C, Pignone M. Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia. J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Mar;29(3):507-13. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2701-0. Epub 2013 Nov 23.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29325548
Citation
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 Jan 12;18(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0582-1.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24625261
Citation
Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, Col N, Feldman-Stewart D, Gavaruzzi T, Kryworuchko J, Levin CA, Pieterse AH, Reyna V, Stiggelbout A, Scherer LD, Wills C, Witteman HO. Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S8. Epub 2013 Nov 29.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16908462
Citation
Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, Thomson R, Barratt A, Barry M, Bernstein S, Butow P, Clarke A, Entwistle V, Feldman-Stewart D, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Moumjid N, Mulley A, Ruland C, Sepucha K, Sykes A, Whelan T; International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. Epub 2006 Aug 14.
Results Reference
background
Citation
Edwards A, Elwyn G. Shared Decision-Making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence-Based Patient Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28122849
Citation
Carter-Harris L, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ, Roth JA, Buist DSM. A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening. Fam Pract. 2017 Apr 1;34(2):239-244. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw146.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26173719
Citation
Ali N, Lifford KJ, Carter B, McRonald F, Yadegarfar G, Baldwin DR, Weller D, Hansell DM, Duffy SW, Field JK, Brain K. Barriers to uptake among high-risk individuals declining participation in lung cancer screening: a mixed methods analysis of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial. BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 14;5(7):e008254. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008254.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28212998
Citation
Lillie SE, Fu SS, Fabbrini AE, Rice KL, Clothier B, Nelson DB, Doro EA, Moughrabieh MA, Partin MR. What factors do patients consider most important in making lung cancer screening decisions? Findings from a demonstration project conducted in the Veterans Health Administration. Lung Cancer. 2017 Feb;104:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.11.021. Epub 2016 Nov 29.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27397651
Citation
Quaife SL, Marlow LAV, McEwen A, Janes SM, Wardle J. Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication. Health Expect. 2017 Aug;20(4):563-573. doi: 10.1111/hex.12481. Epub 2016 Jul 11.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22681870
Citation
Jonnalagadda S, Bergamo C, Lin JJ, Lurslurchachai L, Diefenbach M, Smith C, Nelson JE, Wisnivesky JP. Beliefs and attitudes about lung cancer screening among smokers. Lung Cancer. 2012 Sep;77(3):526-31. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.05.095. Epub 2012 Jun 6.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26701339
Citation
Carter-Harris L, Ceppa DP, Hanna N, Rawl SM. Lung cancer screening: what do long-term smokers know and believe? Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):59-68. doi: 10.1111/hex.12433. Epub 2015 Dec 23.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29975709
Citation
Roth JA, Carter-Harris L, Brandzel S, Buist DSM, Wernli KJ. A qualitative study exploring patient motivations for screening for lung cancer. PLoS One. 2018 Jul 5;13(7):e0196758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196758. eCollection 2018.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28933940
Citation
Triplette M, Kross EK, Mann BA, Elmore JG, Slatore CG, Shahrir S, Romine PE, Frederick PD, Crothers K. An Assessment of Primary Care and Pulmonary Provider Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 Jan;15(1):69-75. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201705-392OC.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27676369
Citation
Kanodra NM, Pope C, Halbert CH, Silvestri GA, Rice LJ, Tanner NT. Primary Care Provider and Patient Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening. A Qualitative Study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016 Nov;13(11):1977-1982. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201604-286OC.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28648531
Citation
Rajupet S, Doshi D, Wisnivesky JP, Lin JJ. Attitudes About Lung Cancer Screening: Primary Care Providers Versus Specialists. Clin Lung Cancer. 2017 Nov;18(6):e417-e423. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.05.003. Epub 2017 May 10.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29403320
Citation
Henderson LM, Jones LM, Marsh MW, Brenner AT, Goldstein AO, Benefield TS, Greenwood-Hickman MA, Molina PL, Rivera MP, Reuland DS. Opinions, practice patterns, and perceived barriers to lung cancer screening among attending and resident primary care physicians. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2018 Jan 22;10:189-195. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S143152. eCollection 2017.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28285693
Citation
Simmons VN, Gray JE, Schabath MB, Wilson LE, Quinn GP. High-risk community and primary care providers knowledge about and barriers to low-dose computed topography lung cancer screening. Lung Cancer. 2017 Apr;106:42-49. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.01.012. Epub 2017 Jan 31.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27294476
Citation
Ersek JL, Eberth JM, McDonnell KK, Strayer SM, Sercy E, Cartmell KB, Friedman DB. Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening among family physicians. Cancer. 2016 Aug 1;122(15):2324-31. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29944. Epub 2016 Jun 13.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28652090
Citation
Raz DJ, Wu GX, Consunji M, Nelson RA, Kim H, Sun CL, Sun V, Kim JY. The Effect of Primary Care Physician Knowledge of Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines on Perceptions and Utilization of Low-Dose Computed Tomography. Clin Lung Cancer. 2018 Jan;19(1):51-57. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.05.013. Epub 2017 Jun 1.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25613118
Citation
Lewis JA, Petty WJ, Tooze JA, Miller DP, Chiles C, Miller AA, Bellinger C, Weaver KE. Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Practices and Attitudes among Primary Care Providers at an Academic Medical Center. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Apr;24(4):664-70. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1241. Epub 2015 Jan 22.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27346412
Citation
Raz DJ, Wu GX, Consunji M, Nelson R, Sun C, Erhunmwunsee L, Ferrell B, Sun V, Kim JY. Perceptions and Utilization of Lung Cancer Screening Among Primary Care Physicians. J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Nov;11(11):1856-1862. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.06.010. Epub 2016 Jun 23.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27241830
Citation
Carter-Harris L, Tan AS, Salloum RG, Young-Wolff KC. Patient-provider discussions about lung cancer screening pre- and post-guidelines: Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Nov;99(11):1772-1777. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.014. Epub 2016 May 17.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30105393
Citation
Brenner AT, Malo TL, Margolis M, Elston Lafata J, James S, Vu MB, Reuland DS. Evaluating Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 1;178(10):1311-1316. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3054.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24518006
Citation
Volk RJ, Linder SK, Leal VB, Rabius V, Cinciripini PM, Kamath GR, Munden RF, Bevers TB. Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. Prev Med. 2014 May;62:60-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.006. Epub 2014 Feb 8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27966194
Citation
Housten AJ, Lowenstein LM, Leal VB, Volk RJ. Responsiveness of a Brief Measure of Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge. J Cancer Educ. 2018 Aug;33(4):842-846. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1153-8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30620619
Citation
Bellinger C, Pinsky P, Foley K, Case D, Dharod A, Miller D. Lung Cancer Screening Benefits and Harms Stratified by Patient Risk: Information to Improve Patient Decision Aids. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Apr;16(4):512-514. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201810-690RL. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30625501
Citation
Dharod A, Bellinger C, Foley K, Case LD, Miller D. The Reach and Feasibility of an Interactive Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Delivered by Patient Portal. Appl Clin Inform. 2019 Jan;10(1):19-27. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676807. Epub 2019 Jan 9.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28400354
Citation
Miller DP Jr, Weaver KE, Case LD, Babcock D, Lawler D, Denizard-Thompson N, Pignone MP, Spangler JG. Usability of a Novel Mobile Health iPad App by Vulnerable Populations. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Apr 11;5(4):e43. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7268.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29800127
Citation
Katki HA, Kovalchik SA, Petito LC, Cheung LC, Jacobs E, Jemal A, Berg CD, Chaturvedi AK. Implications of Nine Risk Prediction Models for Selecting Ever-Smokers for Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jul 3;169(1):10-19. doi: 10.7326/M17-2701. Epub 2018 May 15.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28929865
Citation
Pinsky PF, Bellinger CR, Miller DP Jr. False-positive screens and lung cancer risk in the National Lung Screening Trial: Implications for shared decision-making. J Med Screen. 2018 Jun;25(2):110-112. doi: 10.1177/0969141317727771. Epub 2017 Sep 20.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21931068
Citation
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Oct 5;103(19):1436-43. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr318. Epub 2011 Sep 19.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18755566
Citation
Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):448-55. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023. Epub 2008 Aug 27.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30288444
Citation
Hoffman AS, Hempstead AP, Housten AJ, Richards VF, Lowenstein LM, Leal VB, Volk RJ. 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 Apr 19;3(1):2381468318769886. doi: 10.1177/2381468318769886. eCollection 2018 Jan-Jun.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23400279
Citation
Pignone MP, Howard K, Brenner AT, Crutchfield TM, Hawley ST, Lewis CL, Sheridan SL. Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Mar 11;173(5):362-8. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2651.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28851459
Citation
Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, Boynton MH, Halko H. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017 Aug 29;12(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27512650
Citation
Lowenstein LM, Richards VF, Leal VB, Housten AJ, Bevers TB, Cantor SB, Cinciripini PM, Cofta-Woerpel LM, Escoto KH, Godoy MC, Linder SK, Munden RF, Volk RJ. A brief measure of Smokers' knowledge of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. Prev Med Rep. 2016 Jul 26;4:351-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.07.008. eCollection 2016 Dec.
Results Reference
background
Citation
Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int J Human-Computer Interact. 2008;24(6):574-594. doi:10.1080/10447310802205776
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30622199
Citation
Henderson LM, Marsh MW, Benefield TS, Jones LM, Reuland DS, Brenner AT, Goldstein AO, Molina PL, Maygarden SJ, Rivera MP. Opinions and Practices of Lung Cancer Screening by Physician Specialty. N C Med J. 2019 Jan-Feb;80(1):19-26. doi: 10.18043/ncm.80.1.19.
Results Reference
background

Learn more about this trial

Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs