Background: There has been resurgence of interest in lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. The implications of directing a screening programme at smokers has been little explored. Methods: A nationwide telephone survey was conducted. Demographics, certain clinical characteristics and attitudes about screening for lung cancer were ascertained. Responses of current, former and never smokers were compared. Results: 2001 people from the US were interviewed. Smokers were significantly (p,0.05) more likely than never smokers to be male, non-white, less educated, and to report poor health status or having had cancer, and less likely to be able to identify a usual source of healthcare. Compared with never smokers, current smokers were less likely to believe that early detection would result in a good chance of survival (p,0.05). Smokers were less likely to be willing to consider computed tomography screening for lung cancer (71.2% (current smokers) v 87.6% (never smokers) odds ratio (OR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.71). More never smokers as opposed to current smokers believed that the risk of disease (88% v 56%) and the accuracy of the test (92% v 71%) were important determinants in deciding whether to be screened (p,0.05).Only half of the current smokers would opt for surgery for a screen-diagnosed cancer. Conclusion: The findings suggest that there may be substantial obstacles to the successful implementation of a mass-screening programme for lung cancer that will target cigarette smokers.

Patients and caregivers agree on the factors that are important in deciding treatment for advanced lung cancer but differ substantially from doctors. All agree that the oncologist's recommendation is most important. This is the first study to demonstrate that, for some, faith is an important factor in medical decision making, more so than even the efficacy of treatment. If faith plays an important role in how some patients decide treatment, and physicians do not account for it, the decision-making process may be unsatisfactory to all involved. Future studies should clarify how faith influences individual decisions regarding treatment.

results confirm: (i) PTSD was common, especially among women; (ii) all four PTSD screening tests were diagnostically adequate; (iii) Two of four PTSD screening tests showed adequate sensitivity and specificity (>80%) and (iv) The PC-PTSD screening test (four items) appeared to be the best single screening test. There are few studies to establish the utility of PTSD screening tests within civilian primary care.

Forty-seven of 69 total dropouts participated. There was no difference in rate of dropout between modalities. A greater proportion of participants receiving in-person exposure therapy reported difficulties with logistical aspects of care (e.g., parking), whereas a greater proportion of participants receiving telemedicine therapy reported difficulty tolerating certain stressful aspects of treatment; however, those receiving telemedicine delivered treatment completed more sessions before dropping out. Participants in both conditions reported that they liked and were confident in their therapist Conclusions: Dropout reasons varied according to type of treatment delivery. Recommendations for future research are given in terms of modification of treatment protocol according to delivery modality.

BackgroundStudies have shown that community and neighborhood characteristics can impact health outcomes of those with chronic illness, including T2DM. Factors, such as crime, violence, and lack of resources have been shown to be barriers to optimal health outcomes in diabetes. Thus, the objective of this study is to assess the effects of neighborhood factors on diabetes-related health outcomes and self-care behaviors.MethodsAdult patients (N = 615) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were recruited from an academic medical center and a Veterans Affairs medical center in the southeastern United States. Validated scales and indices were used to assess neighborhood factors and diabetes-related self-care behaviors. The most recent HbA1c, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol were abstracted from each patients’ electronic medical record.ResultsIn the fully adjusted model, significant associations were between neighborhood aesthetics and diabetes knowledge (β = 0.141) and general diet (β = -0.093); neighborhood comparison and diabetes knowledge (β = 0.452); neighborhood activities and general diet (β = -0.072), exercise (β = -0.104), and foot care (β = -0.114); food insecurity and medication adherence (β = -0.147), general diet (β = -0.125), and blood sugar testing (β = -0.172); and social support and medication adherence (β = 0.009), foot care (β = 0.010), and general diet (β = 0.016). Significant associations were also found between neighborhood violence and LDL Cholesterol (β = 4.04), walking environment and exercise (β = -0.040), and social cohesion and HbA1c (β = -0.086).DiscussionWe found that neighborhood violence, aesthetics, walking environment, activities, food insecurity, neighborhood comparison, social cohesion and social support have statistically significant associations with self-care behaviors and outcomes to varying degrees. However, the key neighborhood factors that had independent associations with multiple self-care behaviors and outcomes were food insecurity, neighborhood activities and social support. ConclusionThis study suggests that food insecurity, neighborhood activities, aesthetics, and social support may be important targets for interventions in individuals with T2DM.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1086-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.