IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i1p86-96.html

Veterans’ Lung Cancer Risk Conceptualizations versus Lung Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Conversations with Clinicians: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqueline H. Boudreau

    (Center for Healthcare Optimization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
    VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA)

  • Rendelle E. Bolton

    (Center for Healthcare Optimization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
    VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA)

  • Eduardo R. Núñez

    (Center for Healthcare Optimization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
    VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA
    The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    Department of Healthcare Delivery and Population Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, MA, USA)

  • Tanner J. Caverly

    (National Center for Lung Cancer Screening, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA
    VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Lauren Kearney

    (Center for Healthcare Optimization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
    VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA
    The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Samantha Sliwinski

    (Center for Healthcare Optimization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
    VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA)

  • Abigail N. Herbst

    (Center for Healthcare Optimization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
    VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA)

  • Christopher G. Slatore

    (VA Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR, USA)

  • Renda Soylemez Wiener

    (Center for Healthcare Optimization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
    VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA
    The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    National Center for Lung Cancer Screening, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA)

Abstract

Background The Veterans Health Administration (VA) recommends lung cancer screening (LCS), including shared decision making between clinicians and veteran patients. We sought to characterize 1) veteran conceptualization of lung cancer risk and 2) veteran and clinician accounts of shared decision-making discussions about LCS to assess whether they reflect veteran concerns. Methods We conducted qualitative interviews at 6 VA sites, with 48 clinicians and 34 veterans offered LCS in the previous 6 mo. We thematically analyzed transcripts, focusing on lung cancer risk perceptions, LCS decision making, and patient-clinician conversations. Results Three themes emerged. 1) Veterans’ lung cancer risk conceptualizations incorporated smoking, occupational hazards, and family history, whereas clinicians focused on smoking as the primary risk factor. 2) Veterans’ risk perceptions were influenced by symptoms, recency of exposures, and anecdotes about smoking, cancer, and lung disease, leading some veterans to believe other risk factors outweighed smoking in increasing lung cancer risk. 3) Both veterans and clinicians described LCS conversations centered on smoking, with little mention of other risks. Limitations Our findings may not reflect non-VA settings; for example, veterans may be more concerned about airborne hazards. Conclusions While airborne hazards strongly influenced veterans’ lung cancer risk conceptualizations, clinicians seldom addressed this risk factor during LCS shared decision making, instead focusing on smoking. Implications In 2022, the US Congress highlighted the link between military toxic exposures and lung cancer risk, requiring VA clinicians to discuss these exposures and conferring automatic VA benefits to exposed veterans with cancer. There is a time-sensitive need for tools to support VA clinicians in discussing military hazards as a lung cancer risk factor, which may result in more engaging, less stigmatizing LCS shared decision-making conversations. Highlights Veterans’ conceptualizations of their lung cancer risk were multifactorial and sometimes ranked exposure to occupational airborne hazards and family history above smoking in increasing lung cancer risk. However, patient-clinician lung cancer screening (LCS) conversations were typically brief and focused on smoking, which could stigmatize patients and failed to engage veterans in discussing what mattered most to them in thinking about their lung cancer risk. These findings are of heightened importance in light of the 2022 Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, which requires VA clinicians to discuss toxic military exposures and their relationship to lung cancer and other health conditions. Tools that help clinicians assess and incorporate multiple risk factors into discussions about lung cancer may better address patients’ concerns and beliefs and lead to more engaging, less stigmatizing shared decision-making conversations about LCS.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqueline H. Boudreau & Rendelle E. Bolton & Eduardo R. Núñez & Tanner J. Caverly & Lauren Kearney & Samantha Sliwinski & Abigail N. Herbst & Christopher G. Slatore & Renda Soylemez Wiener, 2025. "Veterans’ Lung Cancer Risk Conceptualizations versus Lung Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Conversations with Clinicians: A Qualitative Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(1), pages 86-96, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:1:p:86-96
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241292643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241292643
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241292643?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul K. J. Han & Christine Lary & Adam Black & Caitlin Gutheil & Hayley Mandeville & Jason Yahwak & Mayuko Fukunaga, 2019. "Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 950-961, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tammy C. Hoffmann & Mina Bakhit & Marie-Anne Durand & Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez & Catherine Saunders & Juan P. Brito, 2021. "Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 755-767, October.
    2. Erika A. Waters & Jennifer M. Taber & Nicole Ackermann & Julia Maki & Amy M. McQueen & Laura D. Scherer, 2023. "Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 430-444, May.
    3. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:45:y:2025:i:1:p:86-96. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.