ArticleCancer medicine2024
Empowering minoritized Alabamians screened for lung cancer-The Alabama Lung Cancer Awareness Screening and Education (ALCASE) project.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn Alabama only 4% of those eligible have been screened for lung cancer. The ALCASE project focused on navigating eligible individuals to lung cancer screening.
methodsTrained local staff enrolled screen eligible individuals from seven rural counties and one urban county. Demographics and knowledge of and barriers to lung cancer screening were collected using questionnaires. Education was provided and individuals were navigated to undergo screening. Descriptive statistics for enrolled and screened participants were computed using SAS 9.4. Debriefing interviews were conducted with the ALCASE staff regarding facilitators/barriers to implementing this project and lessons learned. Using NVivo, themes were identified through a combined deductive and inductive process.
resultsIn total, 447 people were contacted of which 257 were enrolled. Participants were predominantly African American (86.8%), female (56.8%), and 86.4% had health insurance. Study participants acknowledged the need for more education of lung cancer/screening procedures; help navigating clinics for screening services and having healthcare facilities close to home. The top five barriers to getting screened were transportation, financial issues, emotional concerns, healthcare insurance, and COVID-19. Of the 257, 106 participants (41%) completed a primary care referral and were screened for lung cancer. Debriefing interviews revealed: (i) Overall impressions of implementing ALCASE were positive. (ii) Barriers in implementing ALCASE were identified predominantly at the physician and institutional level. (iii) Facilitators in implementing ALCASE were identified at multiple levels. (iv) Suggestions on improving lung cancer screening leaned toward mitigating barriers at the institutional and structural level.
conclusionAbility to get screened is severely challenged by both personal and structural barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.