Assessing Social Determinants of Health to Increase Cancer Screening

A multilevel lung screening intervention that pairs Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) screening and referral with a tailored health communication and decision support tool for lung screening has the potential to significantly impact lung screening uptake among at-risk individuals in the community, particularly among those who face barriers related to SDoH. In addition, findings will advance the understanding of effective strategies for improving lung screening and prevention efforts in non-traditional settings, with the ultimate goal of reducing the burden of lung cancer. As ways to support the realization of the public health benefit of lung cancer screening are considered, multiple strategies and venues to reach, and intervene, with screening-eligible is key. The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a community-based lung screening educational tool paired with a social determinants of health (SDoH) screening assessment and referral process compared to a community-based lung cancer screening (LCS) educational tool alone as part of community outreach activities to improve (a) LCS rates (primary outcome); (b) intention to screen; and (c) individual-level potential drivers of LCS (health literacy, mistrust, stigma, fatalism, knowledge, health beliefs). It is hypothesized that providing SDoH screening and referral will result in higher levels of LCS, forward movement of intention to screen, and improved individual-level drivers of LCS.

Sex

All

Minimum age

50 Years

Maximum age

80 Years

Inclusion Criteria:

* Aged 50 years to 80 years
* Currently smoke or quit smoking within the past 15 years
* 20 pack-year smoking history
* Has never had lung cancer screening
* Able to provide informed consent
* Able to speak and understand English

Exclusion Criteria:

* Diagnosed with lung cancer
* Has a history of having a lung cancer screening scan
* Unable to speak and understand English

• BACKGROUNDCancer Facts & Figures 2023. American Cancer Society, Inc.; 2022. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/2023-cancer-facts-figures.html
• BACKGROUNDPettit N, Ceppa D, Monahan P. Low Rates of Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Among a Safety-net Emergency Department Population. West J Emerg Med. 2022 Aug 11;23(5):739-745. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2022.5.55351. PMID 36205665
• BACKGROUNDCarter-Harris L, Ceppa DP, Hanna N, Rawl SM. Lung cancer screening: what do long-term smokers know and believe? Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):59-68. doi: 10.1111/hex.12433. Epub 2015 Dec 23. PMID 26701339
• BACKGROUNDCarter-Harris L, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ, Roth JA, Buist DSM. A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening. Fam Pract. 2017 Apr 1;34(2):239-244. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw146. PMID 28122849
• BACKGROUNDCarter-Harris L, Slaven JE 2nd, Monahan PO, Draucker CB, Vode E, Rawl SM. Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis. J Med Screen. 2020 Jun;27(2):105-112. doi: 10.1177/0969141319876961. Epub 2019 Sep 24. PMID 31550991
• BACKGROUNDMohan G, Chattopadhyay S. Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Sep 1;6(9):1434-1444. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1460. PMID 32556187
• BACKGROUNDWeinstein D. The Precaution Adoption Process Model. In: Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Researchm and Practice. 4th Ed. Jossey-Bass; 2008:123-147.
• BACKGROUNDChew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004 Sep;36(8):588-94. PMID 15343421