Division of Pulmonary, Allergy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA; Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population Quantitative Health Service, Worchester, MA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, MA.
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA.
Chest. 2020 Dec;158(6):2646-2657. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.610. Epub 2020 Jul 3.
Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients.
What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools?
We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening.
After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies).
Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools.
PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.
肺癌筛查决策本质上较为复杂,需要有方法向患者传达筛查的风险和益处。
有哪些决策辅助工具或方法可用于支持肺癌筛查的共同决策?这些工具的有效性、可接受性和可行性的现有证据是什么?
我们对研究进行了系统评价,从建库到 2019 年 12 月,在 PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 临床试验注册库和 ClinicalTrials.gov 上搜索评估用于促进考虑肺癌筛查的患者共同决策的工具的有效性和可接受性的研究。
在筛选了 2427 条记录后,我们纳入了一项随机对照试验、两项观察性研究和 11 项关于决策辅助工具或教育工具的前后研究。在 14 项研究中评估了 15 种不同格式的工具。大多数研究质量为中等。研究报告了患者对肺癌筛查知识的改善(n=9 项研究),但知识的具体方面的改善并不一致。在使用工具后,决策冲突降低或减少(n=7 项研究)。患者(n=7 项研究)和医生(n=1 项研究)对工具的可接受性评价为“高”。低剂量 CT 扫描完成率在各研究之间有所不同(n=6 项研究)。
来自 14 项研究的证据表明,肺癌筛查现有工具的某些元素可能有助于通过提高知识和减少决策冲突来帮助患者做好决策准备。这些工具通常为患者和提供者所接受。需要进一步的研究,这些研究应使用一致的措施和报告方法,并评估相关的决策和临床结果,以确定这些工具的比较有效性和实施的可行性。
PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814。