Abstract Objective Lung cancer remains the leading cancer cause, with approximately 2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths annually 2. It is the second most common cancer diagnosed among men and women, and the incidence is mainly caused by the use of tobacco. The United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recommends screening annually with low-dose CT scan (LDCT) in individuals between 50 and 80 with a history of smoking 20-pack-year who are current smokers or have quit within the past 15 years preceding 1. Despite the recommendations, rates for lung cancer screening remain suboptimal. This study was intended to assess if introducing a written flyer in addition to verbal instruction would increase rates of completing LDCT in a primary care setting. Methods We performed a prospective trial in the primary care of an inner-city medical center. Providers who participated were randomized to two groups: verbal education only and education with a bilingual (English/Spanish) flyer. USPSTF-eligible patients were enrolled by clinicians during routine visits and enrollment data were recorded on a collective Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with date, initials of patient, and medical record number. Electronic medical record (EMR) verification for completion of LDCT four months later showed the LDCT compliance and non-compliance rates which were compared subsequently. Results 53 eligible patients were recruited by 11 providers. 21 patients (40%) received verbal education alone, and 32 (60%) received education with a flyer. An independent samples Z-test was conducted to compare the impact of educational modality on LDCT completion. The results confirmed there was no statistically significant relationship between the groups; verbal education (N = 21) Mean Rank = 26.83, flyer (N = 32) Mean Rank = 27.11, Z = -0.78, p = 0.938. Conclusion This study sought to enhance lung cancer screening rates through the addition of a patient information flyer to standard verbal education. Slightly higher numbers of patients in the flyer group received LDCT screening, though variation was not statistically different. Small sample size, patient heterogeneity in health literacy, and variable provider delivery of educational content are limitations of the study. These findings suggest that one flyer would not have a dramatic effect on screening behavior. Future interventions should include a more comprehensive educational strategy with visual aids, decision support materials, individual counseling, and systematic follow-up. This abstract is funded by: None
Tahir et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: