ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2025
Black US military veterans respond favourably to a booklet using narratives to normalise shared decision-making.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Black Americans, including military veterans, experience worse health outcomes. In the United States, Black men have the highest lung cancer mortality and are less likely to undergo lung cancer screening (LCS). Mistrust caused by systemic racism can inhibit their participation in clinical conversations like shared decision-making (SDM). We sought to empower Black veterans to participate in SDM for LCS by normalising patients advocating for what matters most to them in clinical care decisions. We evaluated the impact of a booklet co-designed with veterans that includes four veteran narratives. They describe how each veteran began to trust their providers and engage in clinical conversations like SDM for LCS. Study design: Pre-post intervention pilot study using surveys to evaluate the impact of the booklet and reactions to the narratives. Methods: The survey was mailed to a random national sample of 450 Black veterans eligible for LCS but not yet screened. Respondents to the baseline survey were mailed the booklet and a follow-up survey. Results: Thirty-nine veterans completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Mean agreement was above 3.0 (on a Likert scale of 1-5) for five statements about the booklet, with "Veterans eligible for screening should read" being the highest (mean 4.3). Information about LCS was rated most engaging (mean 3.2 on a scale of 1-4) and informative (3.3). The mean rating for veteran stories was 3.1 (engaging) and 2.9 (informative). Reactions to the narratives varied, including whether characters were relatable, likable, or influential. One narrative, describing a veteran slowly developing a trusting relationship with his provider, was particularly influential in encouraging respondents to talk with their doctor. Conclusions: The positive reaction to the booklet supports the need to raise LCS awareness among LCS-eligible populations, and suggests that narratives may be a promising tool to increase engagement in care among Black veterans.
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.