Tailoring Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening in Persons Living With HIV

Primary outcomes

1. Focus Group Analysis (Aim I)

   Time frame: During focus participation, an average of 1-1.5 hours

   All focus groups will be recorded and transcribed. Will use a framework analysis approach which combines both inductive and deductive methods where generated themes are mapped onto an implementation framework, specifically the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist. Codes will then be analyzed through a constant comparison method to determine key themes. Will analyze all focus groups in real time to make iterative changes to the focus group guide based on feedback and refining potential methods of shared decision making (SDM). Pre-/post-SDM survey data will be collected via tablet, with a paper option if desired.

   Effectively, number of participants who complete focus group participation for analysis.

2. Improvement in Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge (LKS), According to Pre- vs. Post-intervention Scores (Aim II)

   Time frame: During shared decision-making participation, an average of 1 hour

   The primary outcome was change in knowledge of LCS after using the tailored decision aid. We used two validated measures of LCS knowledge, the LCS-12 and LKS-7, to evaluate knowledge of risks, benefits, and characteristics of LCS. The LCS-12 includes twelve multiple-choice questions which assess knowledge of lung cancer risk, characteristics of LCS, and benefits and harms of LCS. The LKS-7 uses seven questions assessing understanding of the harms and benefits LCS, incidental findings, and the screening process. Our enrollment target was 40-50 patients to achieve greater than 90% power to observe a difference similar to a prior study in pre- and post-SDM knowledge of screening harms (69% to 93%). Minimum score of 0 for LCS-12 and LKS-7, indicating no improvement from pre- to post-intervention assessment on LCS knowledge; maximum score of 12 for LCS-12 and 7 for LKS-7. Higher score represents better outcome, or greater improvement from pre- to post-intervention on measures of LKS.

3. Decision of Cancer Screening (DCS) (Aim II)

   Time frame: During shared decision-making participation, an average of 1 hour

   The Decision of cancer screening (DCS) was used to evaluate participants' decisional conflict after SDM visits. The ten-item lower literacy DCS was selected with possible scores ranging from 0 (minimum; no decisional conflict) to 100 (maximum; extremely high decisional conflict), with possible sub-scores for resulting feelings of uncertainty, feeling informed, clarity of values regarding risks and benefits, and feeling supported. Each question has options for yes (0), unsure (2), and no (4); answers are summed, divided by ten, then multiplied by 25 to provide the overall DCS. Lower scores represent a better outcome, or no/low decisional conflict.

4. Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) (Aim II)

   Time frame: During shared decision-making participation, an average of 1 hour

   The AIM was used to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention for participants. The AIM is a four-item measure to assess the acceptability of a given intervention, in this case the decision aid, producing responses on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) and higher scores indicating greater acceptability.

   The score is calculated by taking the mean of the four responses. Scores range from 1-5.

5. Fidelity (Aim II)

   Time frame: During shared decision-making participation, an average of 1 hour

   Fidelity summarized as median percent of a 10-item checklist completed. Higher percentages represented a better outcome, or greater fidelity to the intervention/completion of items throughout intervention. Minimum percentage of completion is 0; maximum percentage of completion is 100.