HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 34/3/711    most recent 09031936.00098908v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Permissions Request Permissions Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by van den Bergh, K. A. M. Articles by de Koning, H. J. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van den Bergh, K. A. M. Articles by de Koning, H. J.

Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial of computed tomography screening for lung cancer

¹ Depts of Public Health, and, ³ Pulmonology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, and ² Dept of Social Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

CORRESPONDENCE: K. A. M. van den Bergh, Dept of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: k.vandenbergh{at}erasmusmc.nl

Keywords: Informed decision-making, knowledge, lung neoplasms, mass screening, participation

Received: July 1, 2008
Accepted February 5, 2009

The actual lung cancer (screening) knowledge, attitudes, risk perceptions, reasons to participate in or decline participation, and informed decisions of subjects who decided to or decided not to participate in the Dutch-Belgian randomised controlled trial for lung cancer screening in high-risk subjects (the NELSON trial) were evaluated.

A total of 2,500 high-risk subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire 3 weeks after they had received a brochure with information about the trial. Differences in knowledge, attitude and risk perception between participants and nonparticipants were analysed with logistic regression analyses adjusted for sex and smoking status.

The questionnaire response of trial participants was 80% (n = 889) whereas the response of nonparticipants was low (7%, n = 97) and selective. Participants' responses to knowledge items on lung cancer as a disease were on average more often correct (mean±SD 68±17%) than items on lung cancer screening (49±29%). Participants had adequate knowledge on lung cancer screening (51%) more often than the nonparticipants (38%; p = 0.009). Of the decisions regarding participation, 49% were uninformed, mainly due to insufficient knowledge. Most of the participants (99%) and 64% of the nonparticipants had a positive attitude towards lung cancer screening.

Additional efforts are required to improve the knowledge and understanding of subjects who are in the process of decision-making regarding participation in a lung cancer screening trial.