NURS 700 Week 7 Annotated Bibliography Example

Annotated Bibliography: Twelve Studies on Raising Lung Cancer Screening Uptake and Annual Adherence

Clinical Question

The question guiding this bibliography asks whether, for screening-eligible adults between 50 and 80 seen in rural primary care, outreach by nurses that combines decision counseling with stepped reminders produces more completed low-dose CT scans within six months than usual care does. Every study below was kept because it helps answer some part of that question, whether by testing an intervention, measuring the gap or explaining why patients do not come. The twelve studies below were retrieved from CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library and are limited to peer-reviewed research published since 2021.

Annotated Bibliography

Arana-Chicas, E., Reyes, A. V., Chavez-Iniguez, A., Macenat, M., Ferrante, J., Capurro, C., & Kinney, A. Y. (2026). Informing the cultural adaptation of a lung cancer screening shared decision-making and navigation intervention for Hispanic adults: A qualitative study. Cancer Causes & Control, 37(10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-026-02257-7

Arana-Chicas et al. (2026) wanted to know how Hispanic adults perceive screening and shared decision-making, in order to adapt a telehealth coaching and navigation program delivered through primary care. Using the Cultural Appropriateness Framework, they held three virtual focus groups, one in English and two in Spanish, with 19 adults aged 50 to 77 who had smoked at least 20 pack-years; most spoke primarily Spanish. Rapid qualitative analysis identified four themes: little awareness or understanding of screening, a preference for clear and friendly communication, fear and fatalism about cancer, and the importance of culturally relevant design. As qualitative evidence from a small sample, the study cannot estimate effects, but it identifies barriers that a quantitative trial would miss. For Blue Ridge, where few patients are Hispanic, its main lesson is general: outreach scripts should anticipate fear and fatalism and use plain, warm language rather than technical eligibility rules.

Carroll, N. M., Maclennan, A. J., Wain, K. F., Hixon, B., Steiner, J., & Ritzwoller, D. P. (2026). Increasing uptake of lung cancer screening through a patient "nudge": A randomized pragmatic trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2026.108552

Carroll et al. (2026) asked whether a letter sent before a primary care visit, encouraging eligible patients to discuss screening with their physician, would increase screening orders. At Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 894 eligible patients who had never been screened and had a scheduled visit were randomized by birth month, 456 to the letter and 438 to usual care. Among the 728 who attended their visit, same-day orders were 15% with the letter and 18% without it, and completion was about 7% in both groups; by the end of follow-up, slightly more usual care patients had an order. The pragmatic randomized design and registration give the null result credibility, though birth-month allocation is not as rigorous as true random assignment. For the project, the study is important negative evidence: a passive written prompt, with the patient left to start the conversation, did not move screening, which supports investing nurse time in active outreach instead.

Cho, B., Stallings-Smith, S., & Kim, H. (2026). State disparities in lung cancer screening uptake despite facility availability in the United States, 2024-2025: A cross-sectional ecological study. Cancer Control, 33. https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748261494041

Cho et al. (2026) tested whether states with more screening facilities have more screening. They estimated screening prevalence among at-risk adults from the 2024 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and counted facilities in the American College of Radiology registry, expressing density per 100,000 at-risk residents. Facility counts ranged from 9 in Vermont to 669 in Florida, and density from 13.3 in Maine to 65.7 in the District of Columbia, yet screening prevalence showed no significant correlation with either the number or the density of facilities, while varying widely between states. As an ecological study, it describes states rather than individuals and cannot exclude local access barriers. Its relevance is strategic: the network's low screening rate is unlikely to be fixed by adding imaging capacity, which points the project toward patient engagement and clinic processes.

DiCarlo, M., Shimada, A., Sifri, R., Johnson, M., Keith, S. W., Zhan, T., Jackson, H., Indictor, A., Burgess, N., Mahon, I., Pisano, E., & Myers, R. E. (2026). Increasing lung cancer screening referral/order and completion rates in primary care through patient outreach and shared decision making. Journal of Medical Screening. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413261479224

DiCarlo et al. (2026) tested telephone outreach combined with decision counseling in primary care. Patients flagged by the electronic record as possibly eligible were randomized to outreach and counseling (506) or usual care (2,066). Referral or order rates were 16% with outreach and 9% with usual care, and completion was 8% compared with 6%, an effect at the edge of significance. Among the small number of outreach patients confirmed eligible, those who actually received decision counseling were far more likely to be referred than those who did not, 96% compared with 42%. The randomized design is a strength, but the low proportion of flagged patients who proved eligible shows how much record data on smoking history can mislead. For Blue Ridge, the study supports nurse-delivered counseling and underlines the need to verify pack-year histories before outreach.

Jia, Y., Zhao, J., & Rivera, M. P. (2026). Lung cancer screening uptake among adults newly eligible under the 2023 American Cancer Society guideline compared with USPSTF-eligible adults: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Chest. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2026.09.005

Jia et al. (2026) compared screening among adults eligible under the federal task force criteria with adults newly eligible under the 2023 American Cancer Society guideline, which dropped the limit on years since quitting. Using survey-weighted analysis of 5,987 adults from the 2024 National Health Interview Survey, they estimated that 35.2% of adults with a smoking history were eligible under federal criteria, 13.5% only under the society guideline and 51.2% under neither, with past-year screening of 17.8%, 8.0% and 3.9% respectively. Self-reported screening may be inaccurate, but the national sample makes this the best current estimate of uptake. For the project, the study frames the scale of the gap and raises a practical question: whether the network's registry should also include former smokers who quit more than 15 years ago, who are eligible under one guideline but rarely screened.

Katcher, J. G., Wen, K. Y., Shusted, C. S., Liang, J., Koh, K., Juon, H. S., & Barta, J. A. (2026). Health beliefs and lung cancer screening uptake among eligible Asian Americans in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. Preventive Medicine Reports, 67, Article 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2026.103521

Katcher et al. (2026) ran a pilot randomized trial of a culturally and linguistically tailored navigation intervention led by community health workers for eligible Chinese and Korean Americans in a Philadelphia health system. Among the 36 participants, nearly half of those who received navigation completed a scan against under a third of controls, and the median time to completion was 6.1 months with navigation compared with 17.1 months without it. Participants who completed screening differed in perceived risk, benefits, barriers and self-efficacy, and completion was higher among those with lower socioeconomic status. The very small sample makes the difference uncertain, so the study is a feasibility signal rather than proof. Its relevance lies in two details: navigation appeared to shorten the time to screening, and it seemed to help lower-income patients most, both of which matter for a rural network serving many patients with limited resources.

Landsteiner, A., Zerzan, N., Ullman, K. E., Anthony, M., Claussen, A. M., Bayer, R., Do, T., Gustavson, A. M., Melzer, A. C., & Wilt, T. J. (2026). Shared decision-making for lung cancer screening: A systematic review. CHEST Pulmonary, 4(1), Article 100222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chpulm.2025.100222

Landsteiner et al. (2026) asked, through a systematic review, what effects shared decision-making tools and strategies have on lung cancer screening. The authors searched three databases for US randomized and observational studies with a comparator from 2010 through 2023, assessed risk of bias and rated certainty with GRADE. Thirty-one studies were included, too varied for meta-analysis. The review judged, with low certainty, that decision support may raise participation, including support given by coordinators and navigators; with high certainty, patients who received it felt no more conflicted or regretful about their choice; and the specific tool chosen may not matter, though a decision aid may outperform plain education. Few studies examined adherence or harms. As the only systematic review in this set, it anchors the evidence hierarchy. For the project, it supports counseling delivered by nurses and suggests the network need not search for a perfect decision aid, since the choice of tool appeared to matter less than whether a conversation happened at all.

Reid, M. J., LeLaurin, J. H., Ali, S., Sorial, C., Bylund, C. L., Woodard, J. N., Wollney, E. N., Goede, D. L., Lee, J. H., Nelson, D. S., Carter-Bawa, L., & Salloum, R. G. (2026). Identifying barriers and strategies to support a community navigator-driven approach for lung cancer screening. Current Oncology, 33(9), Article 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol33090499

Reid et al. (2026) set out to identify what would help or hinder a new community health navigator workflow for screening in rural and urban settings. They interviewed five primary care providers, seven community scientists, four navigators and two radiology staff and coded the transcripts using two implementation frameworks, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change. Barriers included limited knowledge of eligibility and coverage, poor-quality pack-year data, competing priorities during visits, and patients' difficulties with time off work, transportation and scheduling. Automated alerts in the record and trust between patients and clinicians were facilitators. The sample of 18 is small and the setting regional, but the use of established frameworks strengthens the analysis. The study maps closely onto the barriers Blue Ridge clinicians describe and offers implementation strategies the project can adopt.

Samami, E., Sarkar, S., Zaidi, M., & Poghosyan, H. (2026). Determinants of lung cancer screening intention among eligible individuals. Lung Cancer, 220, Article 109540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2026.109540

Samami et al. (2026) used a cross-sectional survey to examine what predicts the intention to be screened among eligible adults who had never had a scan. Of 1,074 adults responding to an online research panel between late 2023 and early 2024, 521 met eligibility criteria and had never been screened. More than half of these respondents were unaware that lung screening exists, and fewer than one in fifteen had talked about it with any clinician during the prior year; asked about screening within three months if a clinician recommended it, 13.6% said probably or definitely not, 52.9% maybe or probably yes, and 33.4% definitely yes. Older age and fatalistic beliefs reduced the likelihood of strong intention. Online panels may not represent rural, older adults well. Still, the finding that most eligible people are unaware but willing when asked supports the project's premise that a direct, personal recommendation is the missing step.

Sharifian, M., Hoyt, M. A., Madan, A., Lee, S., Nguyen, T. Q., & Sadigh, G. (2026). Patients' and providers' perspective of a multi-level approach to improve participation in low-dose CT for lung cancer screening (Empower LCS): A mixed-methods analysis. Academic Radiology, 33(6), 2352-2360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.03.014

Sharifian et al. (2026) report on Empower LCS, an uncontrolled pilot whose bundle paired a decision aid and patient reminders with alerts to primary care physicians inside the record and with support for patients who screened positive for health-related social needs. Using surveys of patients at six months and interviews with 11 patients and 5 physicians, the authors assessed how helpful each component was. Most responding patients found each component helpful, from 61.5% for the decision aid to 70.7% for the physician notification, and interviews described increased awareness and motivation alongside barriers such as scheduling, insurance delays and stigma about smoking. Some patients felt physicians were hesitant or unsure about eligibility. Without a comparison group, the pilot cannot show effectiveness, but it is useful for design: it supports combining reminders with clinician prompts and adding help with social needs such as transportation, which matches the Blue Ridge plan.

Walsh, C., Palazzo, L., Hansell, L., Louie, T., Long, S., Brown, M., Hippe, D. S., Coronado, G. D., Decell, K., Leone, R. J., Lodhi, S., Wysham, N., Wernli, K. J., & Triplette, M. (2026). Lung cancer screening care pathways in community settings: An examination of 3 healthcare systems. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 23(6), 908-917. https://doi.org/10.1093/annalsats/aaoag029

Walsh et al. (2026) described in a case study how screening actually flows through three community-based programs in Washington state that were taking part in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of care coordination. The team combined five site visits using rapid ethnography, 15 interviews with care providers and member checking with program partners, then mapped each program's workflow from identification through follow-up. The programs served regional primary care networks with differing levels of central support, and their pathways varied considerably. As descriptive research, it does not test an intervention, but its detailed mapping offers a model for the project. Before launching outreach, Blue Ridge should map its own pathway from registry to scan to results letter, because a nurse's call can only be as effective as the steps that follow it.

Wernli, K. J., Anderson, M. L., Palazzo, L., Luce, C., Bezman, N., Rogers, K., Chin, M., Gao, H., Ralston, J., Su, Y. R., Carter-Bawa, L., Triplette, M., Tuzzio, L., Vasavada, A., & Green, B. B. (2026). Health communication and stepped reminders interventions for lung cancer screening: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2026.3666

Wernli et al. (2026) enrolled 1,837 patients with a normal screening scan at Kaiser Permanente Washington in a two-by-two factorial randomized trial, assigning them to usual care, print and video health communication, a coordinator-run reminder sequence with orders prepared for the physician, or both. Success meant any CT scan of the chest in the window from nine to fifteen months after the qualifying scan. Annual adherence reached 75.5% with stepped reminders versus 47.4% without, while the communication materials were associated with slightly lower adherence. The trial's size, randomization and objective outcome make it the strongest single study in this set, though its population was largely White and insured within one integrated system. For the project, it is the core evidence for the annual reminder component, and its finding that information alone did not help reinforces the emphasis on active coordination.