↓ Skip to main content

New recommendation and coverage of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: uptake has increased but is still low

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New recommendation and coverage of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: uptake has increased but is still low
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3338-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiang Li, Sukyung Chung, Esther K. Wei, Harold S. Luft

Abstract

In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening (LDCT-LCS), but there continues to be a dearth of information on the adoption of LDCT-LCS in healthcare systems. Using a multilevel perspective, our study aims to assess referrals for LDCT-LCS and identify facilitators and barriers to adoption following recent policy changes. A retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data from patients aged 55-80 years with no history of lung cancer who visited a primary care provider in a large healthcare system in California during 2010-2016 (1,572,538 patient years). Trends in documentation of smoking history, number of eligible patients, and lung cancer screening orders were assessed. Using Hierarchical Generalized Linear Models, we also evaluated provider-level and patient-level factors associated with lung cancer screening orders among 970 primary care providers and 12,801 eligible patients according to USPSTF guidelines between January 1st, 2014 and December 31st, 2016. Documentation of smoking history to determine eligibility (59.2% in 2010 to 77.8% in 2016) and LDCT-LCS orders (0% in 2010 to 7.3% in 2016) have increased since USPSTF guidelines. Patient factors associated with increased likelihood of lung cancer screening orders include: younger patient age (78-80 vs. 55-64 years old: OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), Asian race (vs. Non-Hispanic White: OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4), reported current smoking (vs. former smoker: OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.0), no severe comorbidity (severe vs. no major comorbidity: OR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.1-0.3; moderate vs. no major comorbidity: OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.4-0.7), and making a visit to own primary care provider (vs. other primary care providers: OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.4). Appropriate referral for lung cancer screening varies considerably across primary care providers. Provider factors include being a female physician (vs. male: OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and receiving medical training in the US (foreign vs. US medical school graduates: OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.3-0.7). Future interventions to improve lung cancer screening may be more effective if they focus on accurate documentation of smoking history and target former smokers who do not regularly see their own primary care providers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2018.
All research outputs
#11,709,168
of 13,189,004 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,073
of 4,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,602
of 267,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,189,004 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them