• WalshJudith M EJME0000-0002-0148-3169Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. judith.walsh@ucsf.edu.Multi-Ethnic Health Equity Research Center, UCSF, San Francis, Leah Karliner, Ashley Smith, Yan Leykin, Steven E Gregorich, Jennifer Livaudais-Toman, Ana I Velazquez, Margaret Lowenstein, and Celia P Kaplan.
• Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA. judith.walsh@ucsf.edu.
• J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Nov 1; 38 (14): 311531223115-3122.

BackgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.ObjectiveTo develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.DesignPilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.ParticipantsPatients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.InterventionProviders were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.Main MeasuresAll eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.Key ResultsA total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).ConclusionsLungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT03862001.© 2023. The Author(s).

13 keywords...

hide…