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
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 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 2%
7.8%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 56%
7.8%
3
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 2%
6.6%
4
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 2%
5.5%
5
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 2%
4.9%
6
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 5%
3.1%
7
Preventive Medicine Reports
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
3.1%
8
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
based on 13 papers
Top 0.3%
3.1%
9
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 2%
2.9%
10
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
2.5%
11
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 60%
2.5%
12
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 7%
2.5%
50% of probability mass above
13
JMIR Medical Informatics
based on 16 papers
Top 3%
2.4%
14
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 2%
2.4%
15
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 36%
2.4%
16
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 2%
1.8%
17
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
1.8%
18
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 3%
1.4%
19
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 7%
1.4%
20
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
based on 29 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
21
BMJ
based on 49 papers
Top 4%
1.4%
22
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 9%
1.4%
23
European Respiratory Journal
based on 44 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
24
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 6%
1.2%
25
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
based on 116 papers
Top 20%
0.9%
26
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
based on 13 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
27
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 40%
0.8%
28
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
29
Computers in Biology and Medicine
based on 39 papers
Top 6%
0.8%
30
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 3%
0.8%