Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07168629

A Community Health Intervention to Improve Lung Cancer Screening Uptake in Community Health Centers

Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer-related mortality, but screening uptake remains low among eligible individuals. The goal of this study is to partner with community stakeholders to develop and pilot test a multi-component navigator-delivered intervention targeting key barriers to lung cancer screening and tobacco treatment utilization. Participants are randomized to enhanced usual care, a community health worker (CHW)-delivered intervention, or the same intervention delivered by a trained lay navigator. The intervention includes patient outreach, patient-centered shared decision-making, tobacco treatment counseling, and assistance navigating logistical barriers to care. The proposed activities will lay the groundwork for a subsequent fully powered randomized clinical trial evaluating CHW- and lay navigator-delivered approaches to facilitate access to lung cancer screening and tobacco treatment.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

50 year–80 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Baystate Health

Springfield, Massachusetts, 01107, United States

Location status: Recruiting

About this study

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death, and lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography can reduce lung cancer-related mortality among eligible individuals. However, uptake of LCS remains low, particularly among populations that face barriers to accessing preventive care.

Community health worker (CHW) interventions have been effective at promoting screening and reducing barriers to care in other cancer settings. This study was designed to develop and pilot test a multi-component intervention intended to improve LCS uptake and tobacco treatment utilization. The intervention includes four components: 1) patient outreach, 2) patient-centered shared decision-making about lung cancer screening, 3) tobacco treatment counseling for participants who currently smoke, and 4) navigation of logistical barriers to care.

The intervention was developed in partnership with a community advisory board composed of community stakeholders and individuals with lived experience, using principles from the Transcreation Framework for Community-Engaged Behavioral Interventions.

The pilot randomized controlled trial is being conducted within Baystate Health community health centers. Participants are randomized to one of three study arms: 1) enhanced usual care, which includes mailed lung cancer screening educational materials and usual screening care through the participant's primary care provider; 2) the multi-component intervention delivered by a community health worker; or 3) the same multi-component intervention delivered by a trained lay navigator, such as a research assistant or pre-medical student.

The study will evaluate the feasibility of implementing the intervention using different navigator models. Primary pilot outcomes include participant recruitment, measure completion, retention, intervention fidelity, and acceptability. Secondary outcomes include lung cancer screening and tobacco treatment utilization. The study will also explore potential mechanisms through which the intervention may influence screening, including knowledge about lung cancer screening and assistance overcoming logistical barriers to care.

Findings from this pilot study will inform the design of a future, fully powered randomized controlled trial evaluating approaches to improving access to lung cancer screening and tobacco treatment.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Adults between the age of 50 and 80.
  • Potentially eligible for LCS according to the Electronic Health Record smoking history.
  • Receive their primary care at Mason Square, High Street, or Brightwood community health centers.
  • English- or Spanish- speaking.

Exclusion criteria

  • Not eligible for lung cancer screening based on age (age < 50 or > 80 years) or smoking history (has not smoked more than 20 pack-years of tobacco cigarettes or quit more than 15 years ago).
  • Have received a lung cancer screen in the past.

Treatment and study plan

Community health worker delivered outreach, shared decision-making, tobacco treatment, and navigation

Behavioral

The CHW will perform: 1) patient outreach 2) patient-centered shared-decision making, 3) tobacco treatmnet counseling, and 4) navigation of logistical barriers

Lay Navigator delivered outreach, shared decision-making, tobacco treatment, and navigation

Behavioral

The lay navigator will perform: 1) patient outreach 2) patient-centered shared-decision making, 3) tobacco treatment counseling, and 4) navigation of logistical barriers

Enhanced usual care

Other

Participants will receive educational materials about lung cancer screening and usual lung cancer screening care through their primary care provider.

Primary outcomes

  1. Feasibility: Number of participants at each stage of the recruitment and retention cascade

    Time frame: once a month until study trial ends, an average one year

    Counts abstracted from the study screening and enrollment log at each of the following stages: approached, screened eligible, consented, randomized, completed baseline data collection, and completed post-intervention follow-up assessment.

  2. Feasibility: Percentage of participants at each stage of the recruitment and retention cascade

    Time frame: once a month until study trial ends, an average one year

    Percentages calculated from the study screening and enrollment log. Eligibility rate = number screened eligible divided by number approached. Consent rate = number consented divided by number screened eligible. Randomization rate = number randomized divided by number consented. Baseline completion rate = number completing baseline data collection divided by number randomized. Retention rate = number completing post-intervention follow-up divided by number randomized.

  3. Fidelity: Duration in minutes of shared decision making (SDM) counseling per encounter

    Time frame: once a month until study trial ends, an average of 1 year

    Time in minutes spent on SDM, recorded by community health workers (CHWs) and lay navigators in the encounter/call tracking log.

  4. Fidelity: Duration in minutes of smoking cessation counseling per encounter

    Time frame: once a month until study trial ends, an average of 1 year

    Time in minutes spent on smoking cessation counseling,recorded by community health workers (CHWs) and lay navigators in the encounter/call tracking log.

  5. Fidelity - SDM quality using OPTION Scale Observer OPTION Scale

    Time frame: once a month until study trial ends, an average of 1 year

    Mean total score on the OPTION Scale Observer OPTION Scale scored from audio-recorded SDM encounters; 12 items rated 0 ("not observed") to 4 ("exhibited at a very high standard"), total score 0-48, with higher scores indicating greater SDM competence.

  6. Fidelity - Completion of SDM required elements

    Time frame: once a month until study trial ends, an average of 1 year

    Mean count of CMS SDM Elements completed during each encounter: reduced lung cancer mortality, false positive, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, annual screening, smoking cessation, follow-up testing, and diagnostic procedures.

  7. Fidelity: Percentage of participants with documented use of the SDM decision aid

    Time frame: Monthly through study completion, an average of 1 year

    Proportion of participants for whom the SDM decision aid was used, documented in the CHW and lay navigator encounter log.

  8. Fidelity: Percentage of participants referred to tobacco treatment services, by type

    Time frame: Monthly through study completion, an average of 1 year

    Proportion referred to any tobacco treatment service by type (telephone quitline, in-person counseling,), from EHR referral orders and the CHW and lay navigator encounter log.

  9. Acceptability of the CHW and lay navigator intervention to participants

    Time frame: 3 months post-enrollment (participants) and through study completion, an average of 1 year (navigators)

    Qualitative themes regarding overall experience with the CHW and lay navigator intervention and barriers to lung cancer screening, identified through thematic analyses of semi-structured interviews using a study-specific interview guide. Participants (N=15), ~40-45 minutes, conducted in private at 3-month follow-up;

  10. Acceptability of the intervention to CHWs and Lay navigators

    Time frame: 3 months post-enrollment (participants) and through study completion, an average of 1 year (navigators)

    Qualitative themes regarding overall experience with the Naviagtor intervention and barriers to lung cancer screening, identified through thematic analysis of Navigator encounter logs and semi-structured interviews using a study-specific interview guide. Navigators (N=3), one 45-minute interview each after final intervention delivery.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Percentage of participants with a lung cancer screening (LCS) referral order

    Time frame: 3 months post study enrollment

    Proportion of participants with an order placed in the electronic health record referring them to the LCS program, abstracted from EHR order data. Reported overall and by ordering source (community health worker vs. primary care provider).

  2. Percentage of participants completing low-dose CT lung cancer screening (LCS uptake)

    Time frame: Baseline and post intervention, 3 months post study enrollment

    Proportion of participants with a completed low-dose CT scan documented in the electronic health record, ascertained by EHR chart abstraction

  3. Percentage of participants initiating tobacco treatment, by treatment type

    Time frame: 3 months post study enrollment

    Proportion of participants initiating any tobacco treatment, and proportion by type (telephone quitline, in-person counseling, nicotine replacement therapy, prescription pharmacotherapy), ascertained by EHR chart abstraction and participant self-report at follow-up.

  4. Duration in weeks of tobacco treatment

    Time frame: 3 months post study enrollment

    Number of weeks of continuous tobacco treatment received, calculated from EHR pharmacy fill and counseling encounter data supplemented by participant self-report.

  5. Number of self-reported quit attempts per participant

    Time frame: 3 months post study enrollment

    Count of quit attempts lasting at least 24 hours, measured by participant self-report at the 3-month follow-up assessment.

Other outcomes

  1. Mean score on the LCS-12 lung cancer screening knowledge instrument

    Time frame: Baseline and at 3 months post-enrollment

    The Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Measure (published as "a brief measure of smokers' knowledge of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography") is a 12-item instrument assessing knowledge of lung cancer screening eligibility, benefits, and harms. One point is awarded per correct response. Total score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 12 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater knowledge and are a better outcome.

  2. Mean score on the Perceived Risk of Lung Cancer subscale of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales

    Time frame: At baseline and at 3 months post-enrollment

    The Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales are a 35-item instrument based on the Expanded Health Belief Model. The Perceived Risk of Lung Cancer subscale comprises 3 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The subscale score is the mean of the item responses and ranges from 1 (minimum) to 4 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater perceived personal risk of lung cancer. This construct is not inherently better or worse; higher perceived risk is hypothesized to be associated with greater screening uptake.

  3. Mean score on the Perceived Benefits of Lung Cancer Screening subscale of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales

    Time frame: At baseline and at 3 months post-enrollment

    The Perceived Benefits subscale comprises 6 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The subscale score is the mean of the item responses and ranges from 1 (minimum) to 4 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater perceived benefit of lung cancer screening and are a better outcome.

  4. Mean score on the Perceived Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening subscale of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales

    Time frame: At baseline and at 3 months post-enrollment

    The Perceived Barriers subscale comprises 17 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The subscale score is the mean of the item responses and ranges from 1 (minimum) to 4 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater perceived barriers to lung cancer screening and are a worse outcome.

  5. Mean score on the Self-Efficacy subscale of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales

    Time frame: At baseline and at 3 months post-enrollment

    The Self-Efficacy subscale comprises 9 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), assessing patient confidence in the ability to arrange and complete lung cancer screening. The subscale score is the mean of the item responses and ranges from 1 (minimum) to 4 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy and are a better outcome.

  6. Mean score on the Trust in Navigator Scale

    Time frame: 3 months post-enrollment

    Trust in Navigator Scale: 6-item instrument developed to measure interpersonal trust in a patient's navigator, adapted from the trust in physician scale. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The score is the mean of the 6 item responses and ranges from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum) with higher mean scores indicating greater trust.

  7. Mean score on the SDM Process Survey

    Time frame: 3 months post-enrollment

    The Shared Decision Making Process Scale (also referred to as the SDM Process Survey; National Quality Forum measure 2962) is a 4-item patient-reported instrument assessing whether the clinical conversation addressed the benefits of the option, addressed the harms of the option, and elicited the patient's preference. Total score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum). Higher scores indicate a more complete shared decision making process and are a better outcome.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Chisom Unegbu, BS

CONTACT

[email protected]

Eduardo R Nunez, MD, MS

CONTACT

[email protected]

1-855-794-5864

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Baystate Medical Center

Other

Collaborators

  • National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Registry information

Acronym: CHATS

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2028
Study completion
2028
First posted
Sep 11, 2025
Registry last updated
Sep 22, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.