lung cancer, cancer detection, cancer screening, computed tomography, early diagnosis
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Despite guidelines recommending annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer, uptake remains low due to the perceived complexity of initiating and maintaining a clinical program—problems that likely magnify in underserved populations. We conducted a survey of community providers at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Santa Clara County, California, to evaluate provider-related factors that affect adherence. We then compared these findings to academic providers’ (APs) LDCT screening knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes at an academic referral center in the same county. The 4 FQHCs enrolled care for 80 000 patients largely of minority descent and insured by Medi-Cal. Of the 75 FQHC providers (FQHCPs), 36 (48%) completed the survey. Of the 36 providers, 8 (22%) knew screening criteria. Fifteen (42%) FQHCPs discussed LDCT screening with patients. Compared to 36 APs, FQHCPs were more concerned about harms, false positives, discussion time, patient apathy, insurance coverage, and a lack of expertise for screening and follow-up. Yet, more FQHCPs thought screening was effective (27 [75%] of 36) compared to APs (P = .0003). In conclusion, provider knowledge gaps are greater and barriers are different for community clinics caring for underserved populations compared to their academic counterparts, but practical and scalable solutions exist to enhance adoption.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
Was this content written or created while at USF?
Citation / Publisher Attribution
Cancer Control, v. 25, issue 1, p. 1-8
Scholar Commons Citation
Khairy, Marjon; Duong, Duy K.; Shariff-Marco, Salma; Cheng, Iona; Jain, Jennifer; Balakrishnan, Anupama; Liu, Lynn; Gupta, Aarti; Chandramouli, Ranjani; Hsing, Ann; Leung, Ann; Singh, Baldeep; and Nair, Viswam S., "An Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Beliefs and Practice Patterns for Community Providers Compared to Academic Providers" (2018). Internal Medicine Faculty Publications. 145.