Background

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.

Objective

To develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.

Design

Pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.

Participants

Patients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.

Intervention

Providers were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.

Main measures

All eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.

Key results

A total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

LungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.

Clinical trial registration

NCT03862001.

Purpose

Graduate medical and research training has drastically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread implementation of virtual learning, redeployment from core rotations to the care of patients with COVID-19, and significant emotional and physical stressors. The specific experience of hematology-oncology (HO) fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic is not known.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study using a survey of Likert-style and open-ended questions to assess the training experience and well-being of HO fellows, including both clinical and postdoctoral trainee members of the American Society of Hematology and ASCO.

Results

A total of 2,306 surveys were distributed by e-mail; 548 (23.8%) fellows completed the survey. Nearly 40% of fellows felt that they had not received adequate mental health support during the pandemic, and 22% reported new symptoms of burnout. Pre-existing burnout before the pandemic, COVID-19-related clinical work, and working in a primary research or nonclinical setting were associated with increased burnout on multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed significant concerns about employment after training completion, perceived variable quality of virtual education and board preparation, loss of clinical opportunities to prepare for independent clinical practice, inadequate grant funding opportunities in part because of shifting research priorities, variable productivity, and mental health or stress during the pandemic.

Conclusion

HO fellows have been profoundly affected by the pandemic, and our data illustrate multiple avenues for fellowship programs and national organizations to support both clinical and postdoctoral trainees.