• Nicholas R Murphy, Kristina Crothers, Madison Snidarich, Jehan Z Budak, Meagan C Brown, Bryan J Weiner, Nicholas Giustini, Tanner Caverly, Katherine Durette, Katie DeCell, and Matthew Triplette.
• Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: nrmurphy@uw.edu.
• Chest. 2024 Jul 29.

BackgroundPeople with HIV are at increased risk for lung cancer and multimorbidity, complicating the balance of risks and benefits of lung cancer screening. We previously adapted Decision Precision (screenlc.com) to guide shared decision-making for lung cancer screening in people with HIV.Research QuestionDoes an HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improve shared decision-making regarding lung cancer screening in people with HIV as measured by knowledge, decisional conflict, and acceptability?Study Design And MethodsThis was a single-arm pilot trial of the decision aid in 40 participants with HIV eligible for lung cancer screening. The decision aid included personalized screening recommendations and HIV-specific, 5-year risk estimates of lung cancer and all-cause mortality. Participants reviewed the decision aid at shared decision-making visits and completed previsit and postvisit surveys with measures of knowledge about lung cancer screening, acceptability, and decisional conflict.ResultsThe 40 enrolled participants were a median age of 62 years, 60% currently smoked, and they had median 5-year risks of lung cancer and all-cause mortality of 2.0% (IQR, 1.4%-3.3%) and 4.1% (IQR, 3.3%-7.9%), respectively. Personalized recommendations included "Encourage Screening" for 53% of participants and "Preference Sensitive" recommendations for the remainder. Participants showed improvement in two validated knowledge measures with relative improvement of 60% (P < 0.001) on the 12-question lung cancer screening knowledge test and 27% (P < .001) on the seven-question lung cancer screening knowledge score, with significant improvement on questions regarding false-positive and false-negative findings, incidental findings, lung cancer-specific mortality benefit, and the possible harms of screening. Participants reported low scores on the decisional conflict scale (median score, 0; interquartile range, 0-5) and high acceptability. Ninety percent of patients ultimately underwent screening within 1 month of the visit.InterpretationIn our study, this HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improved participants' knowledge of risks, benefits, and characteristics of screening with low decisional conflict and high acceptability. Our results indicate that this decision aid can enable high-quality shared decision-making in this high-risk population.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04682301; URL: www.Clinicaltrialsgov.Copyright © 2024 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.

5 keywords...

hide…