Utilizing Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Models to Promote Smoking Cessation: Two Randomized Controlled Trials

Sherratt, Frances C; Marcus, Michael W.; Robinson, Jude; Field, John K.

doi:10.1177/0890117116673820

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority ( n = 15) focused on provision of breast cancer risk derived from the Gail model [22], four provided risk information about colorectal cancer, one lung cancer, one cervical cancer, one colorectal and lung cancer, and one colorectal, breast and ovarian cancer. All but two studies [23,24] were conducted in the USA. Twelve were assessed as high or medium/high quality, seven as medium quality and four as medium/low based on the CASP guidelines (Appendix File A.2) [[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bayne

Fairey

Šilarova

et al. 2020

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bayne

Fairey

Šilarova

et al. 2020

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One high-quality RCT 23 reported the impact of risk information on smoking status. Receiving a personalised risk estimate in addition to a generic leaflet did not predict self-reported smoking status at 6 months in current smokers (P=0.66) but was associated with an increased odds of remaining a former smoker in those who had recently quit (OR 1.91 (95% CI 1.03 to 3.55)).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive review of the impact on intention to change health-related behaviours and health-related behaviours themselves, including screening uptake, of interventions incorporating information about cancer risk targeted at the general adult population.DesignA systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis.Data sourcesAn electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2017.Inclusion criteriaRandomised controlled trials of interventions including provision of a personal estimate of future cancer risk based on two or more non-genetic variables to adults recruited from the general population that include at least one behavioural outcome.ResultsWe included 19 studies reporting 12 outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies. There is evidence that interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect intention to attend or attendance at screening (relative risk 1.00 (0.97–1.03)). There is limited evidence that they increase smoking abstinence, sun protection, adult skin self-examination and breast examination, and decrease intention to tan. However, they do not increase smoking cessation, parental child skin examination or intention to protect skin. No studies assessed changes in diet, alcohol consumption or physical activity.ConclusionsInterventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect uptake of screening, but there is limited evidence of effect on some health-related behaviours. Further research, ideally including objective measures of behaviour, is needed before cancer risk information is incorporated into routine practice for health promotion in the general population.

show abstract

“…In a smoking cessation study, no relationship was found between a person being told their lung cancer risk and their 6month perception of personal cancer risk. 32 An individual's intrinsic understanding of their risk may trump calculated values. These findings support our hypothesis that concern for personal risk of lung cancer is likely to be a significant motivator for joining an LCS trial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Perception Among a Lung Cancer Screening Population

Turner

Pond

Tremblay

et al. 2021

Chest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: A successful lung cancer screening program requires a patient cohort at sufficient risk of developing cancer who are willing to participate. Among other factors, a patient's lung cancer risk perception may inform their attitudes toward screening and smoking cessation programs.RESEARCH QUESTION: This study analyzed data from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) Study to address the following questions: Which factors are associated with the perception of lung cancer risk? Is there an association between risk perception for lung cancer and actual calculated risk? Is there an association between risk perception for lung cancer and the intent to quit smoking? Are there potential targets for lung cancer screening awareness?STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The PanCan study recruited current or former smokers aged 50 to 75 years who had at least a 2% risk of developing lung cancer over 6 years to undergo lowdose screening CT. Risk perception and worry about lung cancer were captured on a baseline questionnaire. Cumulative logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between baseline risk variables and both lung cancer risk perception and worry.RESULTS: Among the 2,514 individuals analyzed, a higher perceived risk of lung cancer was positively associated with calculated risk (P ¼ .032). Younger age, being a former smoker, respiratory symptoms, lower FEV 1 , COPD, and a family history of lung cancer were associated with higher perceived risk. Conversely, a consistent relationship between calculated risk and worry was not identified. There was a positive association between risk perception and lung cancer worry and reported intent to quit smoking.INTERPRETATION: Individuals' lung cancer risk perception correlated positively with calculated risk in a screening population. Promotion of screening programs may benefit from focusing on factors associated with higher risk perception; conversely, harnessing worry seemingly holds less value.

show abstract

Utilizing Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Models to Promote Smoking Cessation: Two Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract: The current study suggests that lung cancer risk projections may help maintain abstinence among individuals who have quit smoking, but the results did not provide evidence to suggest that lung cancer risk projections motivate current smokers to quit.

Cited by 7 publications

References 29 publications

Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Risk Perception Among a Lung Cancer Screening Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About