Author
Listed:
- Georgia B. Black
(Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK)
- Sam M. Janes
(Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK)
- Matthew E. J. Callister
(Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK)
- Sandra van Os
(Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK)
- Katriina L. Whitaker
(School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK)
- Samantha L. Quaife
(Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK)
Abstract
Background Lung cancer clinical guidelines and risk tools often rely on smoking history as a significant risk factor. However, never-smokers make up 14% of the lung cancer population, and this proportion is rising. Consequently, they are often perceived as low-risk and may experience diagnostic delays. This study aimed to explore how clinicians make risk-informed diagnostic decisions for never-smokers. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 lung cancer diagnosticians, supported by data from interviews with 20 never-smoker lung cancer patients. The data were analyzed using a framework analysis based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and data-driven interpretations. Results Participants described 3 main strategies for making risk-informed decisions incorporating smoking status: guidelines, heuristics, and potential harms. Clinicians supplemented guidelines with their own heuristics for never-smokers, such as using higher thresholds for chest X-ray. Decisions were easier for patients with high-risk symptoms such as hemoptysis. Clinicians worried about overinvestigating never-smoker patients, particularly in terms of physical and psychological harms from invasive procedures or radiation. To minimize unnecessary anxiety about lung cancer risk, clinicians made efforts to downplay this. Conversely, some patients found that this caused process harms such as delays and miscommunications. Conclusion Improved guidance and methods of risk differentiation for never-smokers are needed to avoid diagnostic delays, overreassurance, and clinical pessimism. This requires an improved evidence base and initiatives to increase awareness among clinicians of the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers. As the proportion of never-smoker patients increases, this issue will become more urgent. Highlights Smoking status is the most common risk factor used by clinicians to guide decision making, and guidelines often focus on this factor. Some clinicians also use their own heuristics for never-smokers, and this becomes particularly relevant for patients with lower risk symptoms. Clinicians are also concerned about the potential harms and risks associated with deploying resources on diagnostics for never-smokers. Some patients find it difficult to decide whether or not to go ahead with certain procedures due to efforts made by clinicians to downplay the risk of lung cancer. Overall, the study highlights the complex interplay between smoking history, clinical decision making, and patient anxiety in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Suggested Citation
Georgia B. Black & Sam M. Janes & Matthew E. J. Callister & Sandra van Os & Katriina L. Whitaker & Samantha L. Quaife, 2024.
"The Role of Smoking Status in Making Risk-Informed Diagnostic Decisions in the Lung Cancer Pathway: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals and Patients,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 152-162, February.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:152-162
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231220954
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:152-162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.