Predictors of participant nonadherence in lung cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

•Emerging issue in lung cancer screening is nonadherence to follow-up recommendations.•Low nonadherence rate in the National Lung Screening Trial is difficult to replicate in community settings.•Current smokers, racial minorities, and younger participants are more nonadherent.•Program coordinators s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Netherlands), 2020-08, Vol.146, p.134-144
Hauptverfasser: Lam, Andrew C.L., Aggarwal, Reenika, Cheung, Serina, Stewart, Erin L., Darling, Gail, Lam, Stephen, Xu, Wei, Liu, Geoffrey, Kavanagh, John
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Emerging issue in lung cancer screening is nonadherence to follow-up recommendations.•Low nonadherence rate in the National Lung Screening Trial is difficult to replicate in community settings.•Current smokers, racial minorities, and younger participants are more nonadherent.•Program coordinators sending reminder calls/letters may improve adherence.•Mobile lung screening may improve adherence in rural settings and poor. populations. The low nonadherence rates reported by large low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials were not necessarily replicated outside of trial conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified predictors of participant nonadherence to returning for annual LDCT screening. The systematic review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42019118347). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AgeLine, grey literature sources, and reference lists of included studies were searched until March 1st, 2020. Primary research articles were eligible for inclusion if they screened current or former smokers using LDCT as their primary screening modality and reported on participant demographics or programmatic interventions that predicted nonadherence. Risk of bias assessment was performed at both study and outcome levels. The primary outcome was predictors of nonadherence. The secondary outcomes were relative risks (RR) of second round nonadherence based on identified predictors, which were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. Across 13 included studies (total n = 15,790; range: 157–3642), the overall rate of nonadherence was 28% (95% CI: 20–37%). Studies identified greater nonadherence in participants younger than 60 or older than 74, with longer travel distances to screening centers, and having a low risk perception of lung cancer. Meta-analyses identified higher nonadherence in community-based compared to academic-based programs, but this did not reach significance (32% versus 27%; p = 0.32). Current smokers were more likely to be nonadherent compared to former smokers (RR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.09–1.40; p 
ISSN:0169-5002
1872-8332
DOI:10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.05.013