• 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 Department of Medicine, 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, five-year risk estimates of lung cancer and all-cause mortality. Participants reviewed the decision aid at shared decision-making visits and completed pre- and post-visit surveys with measures of knowledge about lung cancer screening, acceptability, and decisional conflict.ResultsThe 40 enrolled participants were a median 62 years old and 60% were currently smoking with median five-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%). 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 LCS-12 and 27% (p<0.001) on the LKS-7, 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, IQR 0-5) and high acceptability. Ninety percent ultimately underwent screening within one month of the visit.InterpretationThis HIV-adapted and personally tailored decision aid improved participants' knowledge of risks, benefits, and characteristics of screening with low decisional conflict and high acceptability. This decision aid can enable high-quality shared decision-making in this high-risk population.Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

4 keywords...

hide…