Background
Research on the psychological impact of low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening has typically been narrow in scope and restricted to the trial setting.
Objective
To explore the range of psychological and behavioural responses to LDCT screening offered as part of a Lung Heath Check (LHC), including lung cancer risk assessment, spirometry testing, a carbon monoxide reading and smoking cessation advice.
Methods
Semi‐structured interviews were carried out with 28 current and former smokers (aged 60‐75), who had undergone LDCT screening as part of a LHC appointment and mostly received an incidental or indeterminate result (n = 23). Framework analysis was used to map the spectrum of responses participants had across the LHC appointment and screening pathway, to their LDCT results and to surveillance.
Results
Interviewees reported a diverse range of both positive and negative psychological responses, beginning at invitation and spanning the entire LHC appointment (including spirometry) and LDCT screening pathway. Similarly, positive behavioural responses extended beyond smoking cessation to include anticipated implications for other cancer prevention and early detection behaviours, such as symptom presentation. Individual differences in responses appeared to be influenced by smoking status and LDCT result, as well as modifiable factors including perceived risk and health status, social support, competing priorities, fatalism and perceived stigma.
Conclusions
The diverse ways in which participants responded to screening, both psychologically and behaviourally, should direct a broader research agenda to ensure all stages of screening delivery and communication are designed to promote well‐being, motivate positive behaviour change and maximize patient benefit.
Objectives: To explore the evidence for cognitive heuristics or "rules of thumb" used within patients' reports of symptom appraisal and decisions to seek help for symptoms of cancer.Methods: A secondary analysis of interviews from existing studies that explored symptom appraisal in patients who had sought help for potential symptoms of cancer.Transcripts from n = 50 in-depth interviews with patients referred with symptoms suspicious of cancer (pancreas, colorectal, oral, lung, melanoma, breast, and prostate) were re-analysed using a deductive thematic approach underpinned by the heuristics outlined in the Common Sense Model of Illness Self-regulation as set within the Model of Pathways to Treatment.Results: The most dominant heuristic in patient reports was the Rate of change rule (ie, symptoms that are worsening, increasing, or have a sudden onset [rather than improving, stable or decreasing in number] are more likely to indicate illness). There was also support for the Duration rule, Pattern rule, Chronology rule, Severity (of interference) rule, Age-illness rule, Novelty rule, Similarity rule, Location rule, and Optimistic bias rule. There was a lack of evidence for the Prevalence and Stress-illness rules.Conclusions: People do appear to use heuristics to guide their appraisal of symptoms and their perceived need for healthcare. Heuristics may be an important aspect underlying symptom misinterpretation, thus making them key targets for interventions. For instance, campaigns could tackle cognitive biases rather than focusing on specific symptom awareness. Myth-busting messages could highlight that intermittent, mild symptoms, and symptoms that are not worsening can be signs of a serious health problem.
Advanced stage cancer is frequently attributed to delays in presentation to a healthcare professional. To reduce undue delay, it is imperative to understand the reasons underlying help-seeking behaviour and to measure those using valid and reliable tools. This systematic review aimed to identify how studies have measured psychosocial factors affecting time to presentation for (potential) cancer symptoms. A total of 35 studies were included. Most studies failed to use valid and reliable tools, and predominantly provided inconclusive results regarding psychosocial factors and time to presentation when no or minimal psychometric evidence was present. Consequently, measure selection and future measure development should be guided by psychometric principles.
BackgroundVery little is known about the influence of chronic conditions on symptom attribution and help-seeking for potential cancer symptoms.AimTo determine if symptom attribution and anticipated help-seeking for potential lung cancer symptoms is influenced by pre-existing respiratory conditions (often referred to as comorbidity), such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Design & settingA total of 2143 adults (1081 with and 1062 without a respiratory condition) took part in an online vignette survey.MethodThe vignette described potential lung cancer symptoms (persistent cough and breathlessness) after which questions were asked on symptom attribution and anticipated help-seeking.ResultsAttribution of symptoms to cancer was similar in participants with and without respiratory conditions (21.5% and 22.1%, respectively). Participants with respiratory conditions, compared with those without, were more likely to attribute the new or changing cough and breathlessness to asthma or COPD (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.02 to 4.39). Overall, 56.5% of participants reported intention to seek help from a GP within 3 weeks if experiencing the potential lung cancer symptoms. Having a respiratory condition increased the odds of prompt help-seeking (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.49). Regular healthcare appointments were associated with higher odds of anticipated help-seeking.ConclusionOnly one in five participants identified persistent cough and breathlessness as potential cancer symptoms, and half said they would promptly seek help from a GP, indicating scope for promoting help-seeking for new or changing symptoms. Chronic respiratory conditions did not appear to interfere with anticipated help-seeking, which might be explained by regular appointments to manage chronic conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.