Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

Lung cancer is especially prevalent among US veterans, and lung cancer mortality can be reduced through lung cancer screening (LCS). LCS guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) to help patients weigh the benefits and harms of LCS and make informed, values-based decisions about screening. Yet some question whether SDM affects patient outcomes. This study evaluated US veterans’ perceptions of LCS SDM quality and its relationship with satisfaction in LCS decisions.

Methods

We administered surveys via mail and phone to veterans in the VA New England Healthcare Network after recent LCS conversations. SDM quality was measured using CollaboRATE, with top scores indicating high quality. Decision satisfaction was assessed using the Satisfaction with Decision scale. Generalized linear models analyzed associations between perceived SDM quality and decision satisfaction, adjusting for demographics, health, and overall care satisfaction.

Results

Among 1,033 patients who received surveys, 320 responded (31.0%), with 220 recalling the LCS conversation. Among those who answered the CollaboRATE questions, 34.0% (73/215) perceived SDM to be high quality (“top scorers”). Perceived high-quality SDM was significantly associated with greater decision satisfaction compared with lower perceived SDM quality (adjusted mean satisfaction on a 30-point scale = 26.75 v. 24.23; P < 0.001). A greater proportion of patients who received, versus did not receive, patient education materials rated SDM as high quality (44.4% v. 27.7%, P = 0.018).

Limitations

The sample was primarily White, male, and all US veterans, limiting generalizability to other LCS-eligible cohorts. The cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences and long-term follow-up.

Conclusions

Higher perceived SDM quality was associated with greater patient satisfaction with the LCS decision. Improving SDM processes can enhance patient engagement and may improve LCS adherence and health outcomes.

Highlights

Higher perceived shared decision making (SDM) quality in lung cancer screening (LCS) discussions leads to greater patient satisfaction with screening decisions.

While the use of patient education materials was linked to higher perceived SDM quality, less than half of patients who received materials rated SDM as high quality. There remains room for improved design and delivery to ensure materials effectively support the SDM process and guidance to providers on how to effectively incorporate patient educational materials to support, rather than replace, high-quality SDM conversations.

Enhancing SDM processes and aligning them with patient preferences can support patient satisfaction with their decision, which may have downstream benefits to patient engagement, adherence, and improved outcomes.

Keywords

ung cancer screening shared-decision making patient satisfaction veterans patient education materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Cancer Institute. Cancer stat facts: common cancer sites: surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/common.html

Zeliadt

Sekaran

, et al. Comparison of demographic characteristics, surgical resection patterns, and survival outcomes for Veterans and nonveterans with non-small cell lung cancer in the pacific northwest. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(10):1726–32. DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31822ada77

Campling

Hwang

W-T

Zhang

, et al. A population-based study of lung carcinoma in Pennsylvania: comparison of Veterans Administration and civilian populations. Cancer. 2005;104(4):833–40. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21228

National Lung Screening Trial Research Team; Aberle

Adams

Berg

, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.

de Koning

van der Aalst

de Jong

, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):503–13. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793

Davidson

Mangione

Barry

, et al. Collaboration and shared decision-making between patients and clinicians in preventive health care decisions and US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. JAMA. 2022;327(12):1171–6.

Agha

Lofgren

VanRuiswyk

, et al. Are patients at veterans affairs medical centers sicker? A comparative analysis of health status and medical resource use. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(21):3252–7. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.160.21.3252

Núñez

Caverly

Zhang

, et al. Invasive procedures and associated complications after initial lung cancer screening in a national cohort of veterans. Chest. 2022;162(2):475–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.02.031

Slatore

. Counterpoint: can shared decision-making of physicians and patients improve outcomes in lung cancer screening? No. Chest. 2019;156(1):15–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.03.011

10.

Hoffman

Reuland

Volk

. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirement for shared decision-making for lung cancer screening. JAMA. 2021;325(10):933–4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.1817

11.

Charles

Gafni

Whelan

. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92. DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3

12.

Bombard

Baker

Orlando

, et al. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):98. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z

13.

Brenner

Malo

Margolis

, et al. Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(10):1311–6. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3054

14.

Wiener

Koppelman

Bolton

, et al. Patient and clinician perspectives on shared decision-making in early adopting lung cancer screening programs: a qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(7):1035–42. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-018-4350-9

15.

Abubaker-Sharif

Shusted

Myers

. Primary care physician perceptions of shared decision making in lung cancer screening. J Cancer Educ. 2022;37(4):1099–107. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01925-9

16.

Melzer

Golden

Ono

Datta

Crothers

Slatore

. What exactly is shared decision-making? A qualitative study of shared decision-making in lung cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(2):546–53. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05516-3

17.

Stalmeier

PFM

. Adherence and decision aids: a model and a narrative review. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(1):121–9. DOI: 10.1177/0272989x10370487

18.

Hughes

Merath

Chen

, et al. Association of shared decision-making on patient-reported health outcomes and healthcare utilization. Am J Surg. 2018;216(1):7–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.01.011

19.

Street

Makoul

Arora

Epstein

. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):295–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015

20.

Núñez

Caverly

Zhang

, et al. Adherence to follow-up testing recommendations in US veterans screened for lung cancer, 2015–2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2116233. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.16233

21.

Lopez-Olivo

Maki

Choi

, et al. Patient adherence to screening for lung cancer in the US: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2025102. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25102

22.

Wiener

Barker

Carter-Harris

, et al. Stakeholder research priorities to promote implementation of shared decision-making for lung cancer screening: an American thoracic society and veterans affairs health services research and development statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205(6):619–30.

23.

Mazzone

Powell

Arenberg

, et al. Components necessary for high-quality lung cancer screening: American College of Chest Physicians and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement. Chest. 2015;147(2):295–303. DOI: 10.1378/chest.14-2500

24.

US Preventive Services Task Force; Davidson

Barry

Mangione

, et al. Screening for lung cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;325(10):962–70. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117

25.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT). Updated October 2, 2022. [Accessed 1 July, 2024]. Available from https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/ncd.aspx?NCDId=364

26.

Kinsinger

Anderson

Kim

, et al. Implementation of lung cancer screening in the veterans health administration. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):399–406. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9022

27.

Alishahi Tabriz

Neslund-Dudas

Turner

Rivera

Reuland

Elston Lafata

. How health-care organizations implement shared decision-making when it is required for reimbursement: the case of lung cancer screening. Chest. 2021;159(1):413–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.078

28.

Núñez

Caverly

Zhang

, et al. Factors associated with declining lung cancer screening after discussion with a clinician in a cohort of US veterans. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8):e2227126. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27126

29.

Elwyn

Barr

Grande

Thompson

Walsh

Ozanne

. Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(1):102–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009

30.

Barr

Thompson

Walsh

Grande

Ozanne

Elwyn

. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Intern Res. 2014;16(1):e3085.

31.

Wills

Holmes-Rovner

. Preliminary validation of the satisfaction with decision scale with depressed primary care patients. Health Expect. 2003;6(2):149–59. DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2003.00220.x

32.

Degner

Sloan

Venkatesh

. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–44.

33.

Glass

Wills

Holloman

, et al. Shared decision making and other variables as correlates of satisfaction with health care decisions in a United States national survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(1):100–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.02.010

34.

Tanner

Banas

Yeager

Dai

Hughes Halbert

Silvestri

. In-person and telephonic shared decision-making visits for people considering lung cancer screening: an assessment of decision quality. Chest. 2019;155(1):236–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.07.046

35.

Siebinga

Driever

Stiggelbout

Brand

. Shared decision making, patient-centered communication and patient satisfaction–a cross-sectional analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(7):2145–50.

36.

Golden

Ono

Thakurta

, et al. “I’m putting my trust in their hands”: a qualitative study of patients’ views on clinician initial communication about lung cancer screening. Chest. 2020;158(3):1260–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.02.072

37.

Kehl

Landrum

Arora

, et al. Association of actual and preferred decision roles with patient-reported quality of care: shared decision making in cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(1):50–8. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2014.112

38.

Pagès-Puigdemont

Mangues

Masip

, et al. Patients’ perspective of medication adherence in chronic conditions: a qualitative study. Adv Ther. 2016;33(10):1740–54. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-016-0394-6

39.

Kountz

Shaya

Gradman

, et al. A call for appropriate evidence and outcomes-based use and measurement of anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation: moving the population towards improved health via multiple stakeholders. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2015;21(11):1034–8. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2015.21.11.1034

40.

Wiener

. Point: can shared decision-making of physicians and patients improve outcomes in lung cancer screening? Yes. Chest. 2019;156(1):12–4.

41.

Silvestri

Goldman

Burleson

, et al. Characteristics of persons screened for lung cancer in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(11):1501–5. DOI: 10.7326/M22-1325

42.

Posch

Horvath

Wratschko

Plath

Brodnig

Siebenhofer

. Written patient information materials used in general practices fail to meet acceptable quality standards. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):23.

43.

Schriger

Elder

Cooper

. Structured clinical decision aids are seldom compared with subjective physician judgment, and are seldom superior. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;70(3):338–44.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.12.004

44.

Stamm

Banerji

Wolff

, et al. A decision aid versus shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Can J Urol. 2017;24(4):8910–7.

45.

Crothers

Kross

Reisch

, et al. Patients’ attitudes regarding lung cancer screening and decision aids. A survey and focus group study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13(11):1992–2001. DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201604-289OC

46.

Ankolekar

Dekker

Fijten

Berlanga

. The benefits and challenges of using patient decision aids to support shared decision making in health care. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018;2:1–10. DOI: 10.1200/CCI.18.00013

47.

Laws

Lee

Taubin

Rogers

Wilson

. Factors associated with patient recall of key information in ambulatory specialty care visits: results of an innovative methodology. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0191940. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191940

48.

Kessels

. Patients’ memory for medical information. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(5):219–22.

Linking Patient Perceptions of Shared Decision Making to Satisfaction in Lung Cancer Screening Decisions

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Highlights

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References