Back

Improving Smoking History Documentation to Facilitate Lung Cancer Screening Utilization

Lin, Y.; Ding, R.; Tabatabaei, S. M. H.; Tupper, H. I.; Moghanaki, D.; Schussel, B. H.; Aberle, D. R.; Hsu, W.; Prosper, A. E.

2026-01-01 health informatics
10.64898/2025.12.24.25342974 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesLung cancer screening (LCS) is the only screening test incorporating behavioral risk factors into eligibility determination. However, collecting necessary smoking history data has been challenging, limiting screening uptake. In this study, we evaluated how a program coordinators detailed shared decision-making (SDM) impacted smoking data reliability. MethodsPatients who underwent a baseline screening low-dose CT between July 31, 2013, and August 25, 2023, were stratified into pre- and post-intervention cohorts. The intervention was a comprehensive pre-CT smoking history assessment with SDM by an LCS program coordinator, implemented on July 31, 2017. We compared the completeness and concordance of smoking history data between clinician and patient self-report. ResultsAmong 3795 patients, 670 (18%) were pre- and 3125 (82%) were post-intervention. Having a coordinator reduced missing smoking data (p<0.001), but did not eliminate it. Both groups showed high concordance between clinician-documented and self-reported smoking status (pre: kappa=0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.89; post: kappa=0.84, 95% CI 0.83-0.86). Correlations strengthened for smoking duration (rho=0.71 vs. 0.65, p=0.026) and years since quitting (rho=0.83 vs. 0.80, p=0.21) after involving a coordinator. Correlations for smoking intensity and pack years remained fair (rho<0.6). LCS eligibility based on self-reported smoking history increased from 46.0% (308/670) pre- to 64.1% (2003/3125) post-intervention, below the 100% eligibility using clinician-documented history. ConclusionsSmoking data reliability improved after a dedicated LCS program coordinator implemented a smoking history assessment. Meanwhile, challenges remained with the ascertainment of total pack-years. Detailed probing and patient education may be insufficient to overcome challenges in assessing smoking intensity.

Matching journals

The top 13 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
2
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
3
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.3%
4
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
5
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
6
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
7
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.1%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.1%
10
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
11
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
12
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
13
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
14
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
15
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
16
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
17
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
18
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
19
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
20
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
21
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
22
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
23
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
24
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
25
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
26
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
27
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
28
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
29
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
30
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%