2023 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Posters)-EP04.05. Centralized Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening: Unexpected Consequences

EP04.05. Centralized Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening: Unexpected Consequences - PDF(Slides)

Pdf Summary

This study examined the impact of centralized shared decision making (SDM) in lung cancer screening on participants and physicians. In-depth interviews were conducted with 24 screening participants and 12 physicians to explore their satisfaction with the process and their comfort level with SDM. <br /><br />The rationale for requiring SDM in lung cancer screening is to ensure informed decisions and better health outcomes. However, the centralized approach, where the SDM is conducted by someone other than the physician, can lead to inconsistent knowledge among physicians. <br /><br />Participants felt that their referring physicians did not have sufficient communication with them prior to the referral. Despite this, the majority of participants found the decision to undergo screening easy, based on their perception of the physicians' recommendation and their understanding of the benefits. <br /><br />The study found that only 50% of referring physicians felt they understood how SDM should be carried out, while 33% were not familiar with the requirements. <br /><br />Overall, the centralized approach to SDM in lung cancer screening did not effectively address time constraints for physicians and led to inconsistent knowledge among them. Participants perceived a lack of communication with their physicians and felt that the decision to enroll in screening was already made for them. <br /><br />These findings highlight the importance of improving communication between physicians and patients and ensuring that physicians have a common understanding of the elements of SDM.

Asset Subtitle

David Yankelevitz

Meta Tag

Speaker David Yankelevitz

Topic Screening & Early Detection: Program Design

Keywords

centralized shared decision making

lung cancer screening

participants

physicians

informed decisions

knowledge inconsistency

communication

benefits

requirements

improving communication