No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND The results of the National Lung Screening Trial showed a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in all‐cause mortality when high‐risk patients were screened with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x‐ray (CXR). The US Preventive Services Task Force has issued a grade B recommendation for LDCT screening, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private insurers now cover the screening cost under certain conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of LDCT screening for lung cancer among family physicians. METHODS A 32‐item questionnaire was distributed to members of the South Carolina Academy of Family Physicians in 2015. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS There were 101 respondents, and most had incorrect knowledge about which organizations recommended screening. Many physicians continued to recommend CXR for lung cancer screening. Most felt that LDCT screening increased the odds of detecting disease at earlier stages (98%) and that the benefits outweighed the harms (75%). Concerns included unnecessary procedures (88%), stress/anxiety (52%), and radiation exposure (50%). Most physicians discussed the risks/benefits of screening with their patients in some capacity (76%); however, more than 50% reported making 1 or no screening recommendations in the past year. CONCLUSIONS Most family physicians report discussing LDCT with patients at high risk for lung cancer; however, referrals remain low. There are gaps in physician knowledge about screening guidelines and reimbursement, and this indicates a need for further educational outreach. The development of decision aids may facilitate shared decision‐making discussions about screening, and targeted interventions may improve knowledge gaps. Cancer 2016;122:2324–2331. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

ObjectivesWe examined the utility of January 2004 to April 2014 Google Trends data from information searches for cancer screenings and preparations as a complement to population screening data, which are traditionally estimated through costly population-level surveys.SettingState-level data across the USA.ParticipantsPersons who searched for terms related to cancer screening using Google, and persons who participated in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).Primary and secondary outcome measures(1) State-level Google Trends data, providing relative search volume (RSV) data scaled to the highest search proportion per week (RSV100) for search terms over time since 2004 and across different geographical locations. (2) RSV of new screening tests, free/low-cost screening for breast and colorectal cancer, and new preparations for colonoscopy (Prepopik). (3) State-level breast, cervical, colorectal and prostate cancer screening rates.ResultsCorrelations between Google Trends and BRFSS data ranged from 0.55 for ever having had a colonoscopy to 0.14 for having a Pap smear within the past 3 years. Free/low-cost mammography and colonoscopy showed higher RSV during their respective cancer awareness months. RSV for Miralax remained stable, while interest in Prepopik increased over time. RSV for lung cancer screening, virtual colonoscopy and three-dimensional mammography was low.ConclusionsGoogle Trends data provides enormous scientific possibilities, but are not a suitable substitute for, but may complement, traditional data collection and analysis about cancer screening and related interests.

No abstract