Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Promotional Materials To Promote Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) Screening to High-Risk Consumers and Health Care Providers

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is a promising screening modality for increasing the detection rate of early stage lung cancers among high-risk individuals. Despite being recommended by the US Preventative Services Task Force, uptake of LDCT remains low. The objective of the current study was to gather feedback from high-risk consumers and health care providers on LDCT promotional materials. Focus group discussions were conducted with high-risk individuals (8 focus groups; N = 38) and primary care providers (9 focus groups; N = 23). Participants reviewed existing LDCT promotional materials to assess their perceptions of media materials created to publicize LDCT. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Several key themes emerged from focus groups that can be used to inform development of future LDCT promotional materials. High-risk (HR) participants expressed greater receptivity for promotional materials that did not further stigmatize lung cancer and/or smoking and expressed preferences for materials that clearly outlined the risks/benefits of screening. Primary care providers (PCPs) offered suggestions to facilitate the referral process such as diagnostic codes and requested a design that clearly outlined eligibility criteria. A clear and thorough explanation of LDCT eligibility, cost, harms, and benefits was of chief importance for both PCP and HR audiences. Given that PCPs and HR audiences are not well informed on the specifics of LDCT screening eligibility and insurance coverage, creating provider and patient education opportunities will aid in shared decision-making opportunities. Promotional materials that meet the needs of the target audience are needed to facilitate discussions of risks/benefits of screening with HR individuals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures. 2016. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/document/acspc-047079.pdf.

  2. Ruchalski K, Gutierrez A, Genshaft S, Abtin F, Suh R. The evidence for low-dose CT screening of lung cancer. Clinical imaging. 2015.

  3. Tota JE, Ramanakumar AV, Franco EL (2014) Lung cancer screening: review and performance comparison under different risk scenarios. Lung 192(1):55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cataldo JK (2016) High-risk older smokers’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about lung cancer screening. Cancer Med 4:753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Howlander N, Noone A, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse S. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2012. 2015. 2012.

  6. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mulshine JL, D’Amico TA (2014) Issues with implementing a high-quality lung cancer screening program. CA Cancer J Clin 64(5):352–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Team NLSTR (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365(5):395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wender R, Fontham ET, Barrera E et al (2013) American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin 63(2):106–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National coverage determination (NCD) for screening for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography (LDCT). 2015; https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2015-Press-releases-items/2015-02-05.html.

  11. Barton MK (2015) Integration of lung cancer screening into practice is lacking. CA Cancer J Clin 65(4):255–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cardarelli R, Roper KL, Cardarelli K, et al. Identifying community perspectives for a lung cancer screening awareness campaign in Appalachia Kentucky: the terminate lung cancer (TLC) study. Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education. 2015.

  13. Jonnalagadda S, Bergamo C, Lin JJ et al (2012) Beliefs and attitudes about lung cancer screening among smokers. Lung Cancer 77(3):526–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Quaife SL, Marlow LA, McEwen A, Janes SM, Wardle J. Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication. Health Expectations. 2016.

  15. Delmerico J, Hyland A, Celestino P, Reid M, Cummings KM (2014) Patient willingness and barriers to receiving a CT scan for lung cancer screening. Lung Cancer 84(3):307–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ersek JL, Eberth JM, McDonnell KK, et al. Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening among family physicians. Cancer. 2016.

  17. Lewis JA, Petty WJ, Tooze JA et al (2015) Low-dose CT lung cancer screening practices and attitudes among primary care providers at an academic medical center. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 24(4):664–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoffman RM, Sussman AL, Getrich CM et al (2015) Attitudes and beliefs of primary care providers in New Mexico about lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. Prev Chronic Dis 12:E108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Simmons VN, Gray JE, Schabath MB, Wilson LE, Quinn GP (2017) Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: high-risk community and primary care providers barriers and facilitators. Lung Cancer (in press)

  20. Kreps GL (2003) The impact of communication on cancer risk, incidence, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Health Commun 15(2):161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Silvestri GA, Nietert PJ, Zoller J, Carter C, Bradford D (2007) Attitudes towards screening for lung cancer among smokers and their non-smoking counterparts. Thorax 62(2):126–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Final update summary: lung cancer: screening. 2015; http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Topic/recommendation-summary/lung-cancer-screening.

  23. Glaser BG (1965) The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 12(4):436–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, Kramer BS (2012) Cancer screening campaigns—getting past uninformative persuasion. N Engl J Med 367(18):1677–1679

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hussain SA, Lapinski MK. Nostalgic emotional appeals for smoking prevention doi: 10.1080/08824096.2016.1235557. 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Xu Z, Guo H. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of guilt on health-related attitudes and intentions doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1278633. 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jones SC, Owen N (2006) Using fear appeals to promote cancer screening—are we scaring the wrong people? Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark 11(2):93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hall M, Sheeran, P, Noar, S, Ribisil, K, Boynton, M, Brewer N. A brief measure of reactance to health warnings | SpringerLink. 2017.

  29. Dunn G, Garvey, P.C., Ball, D, Fong, K.M., Vinod, S, O’Connell, S.K. Barriers to lung cancer care: health professionals’ perspectives | SpringerLink. 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Florida Department of Health, James and Esther King Biomedical Program Grant 4KB17.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, 4115 E. Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL, 33617, USA

    Janella N. Hudson, Gwendolyn P. Quinn, Lauren E. Wilson & Vani N. Simmons

  2. Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, 4115 E. Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL, 33617, USA

    Gwendolyn P. Quinn & Vani N. Simmons

  3. Department of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, 4115 E. Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL, 33617, USA

    Vani N. Simmons

Authors
  1. Janella N. Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gwendolyn P. Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lauren E. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vani N. Simmons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vani N. Simmons.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved by Chesapeake IRB (Columbia, MD). A waiver of written informed consent was obtained.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hudson, J.N., Quinn, G.P., Wilson, L.E. et al. Evaluation of Promotional Materials To Promote Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) Screening to High-Risk Consumers and Health Care Providers. J Canc Educ 33, 1043–1051 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1204-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1204-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation