| Title: |
An alternating-intervention pilot trial on the impact of an informational handout on patient-reported outcomes and follow-up after lung cancer screening. |
| Authors: |
Matthew Triplette; Erin K Kross; Madison Snidarich; Shahida Shahrir; Daniel S Hippe; Kristina Crothers |
| Source: |
PLoS ONE, Vol 19, Iss 4, p e0300352 (2024) |
| Publisher Information: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| Publication Year: |
2024 |
| Collection: |
Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
| Subject Terms: |
Medicine; Science |
| Description: |
Introduction Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality; however, poor understanding of results may impact patient experience and follow-up. We sought to determine whether an informational handout accompanying LCS results can improve patient-reported outcomes and adherence to follow-up. Study design This was a prospective alternating intervention pilot trial of a handout to accompany LCS results delivery. Setting/participants Patients undergoing LCS in a multisite program over a 6-month period received a mailing containing either: 1) a standardized form letter of LCS results (control) or 2) the LCS results letter and the handout (intervention). Intervention A two-sided informational handout on commonly asked questions after LCS created through iterative mixed-methods evaluation with both LCS patients and providers. Outcome measures The primary outcomes of 1)patient understanding of LCS results, 2)correct identification of next steps in screening, and 3)patient distress were measured through survey. Adherence to recommended follow-up after LCS was determined through chart review. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control group using generalized estimating equations. Results 389 patients were eligible and enrolled with survey responses from 230 participants (59% response rate). We found no differences in understanding of results, identification of next steps in follow-up or distress but did find higher levels of knowledge and understanding on questions assessing individual components of LCS in the intervention group. Follow-up adherence was overall similar between the two arms, though was higher in the intervention group among those with positive findings (p = 0.007). Conclusions There were no differences in self-reported outcomes between the groups or overall follow-up adherence. Those receiving the intervention did report greater understanding and knowledge of key LCS components, and those with positive results had a higher rate of follow-up. This may represent a feasible ... |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
English |
| Relation: |
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300352&type=printable; https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203; https://doaj.org/article/e1d6d7ea341345cfa1a89fb256ecc9ab |
| DOI: |
10.1371/journal.pone.0300352 |
| Availability: |
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300352; https://doaj.org/article/e1d6d7ea341345cfa1a89fb256ecc9ab |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.16BC808 |
| Database: |
BASE |