Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature

Author, year, journal

Country of study

Study type/ method used

Participant characteristics

Reported analysis

1. Ali et al. 2015, BMJ Open (37)

UK

Mixed methods, cohort analysis and questionnaire

N = 6817 (748 completed the questionnaire), High risk individuals invited to the UKLS trial

Multivariate analysis plus thematic analysis of free text data

2. Carter-Harris et al. 2017a, Family Practice [38]

USA

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews

N = 18, people at high risk of lung cancer who have declined screening invitation

Thematic content analysis

3. Carter-Harris et al. 2017b, Health Expectations [39]

USA

Qualitative, focus groups

N = 26, long-term smokers eligible for lung screening, mix of those who have and haven’t been screened

Content analysis

4. Delmerico et al. 2014, Lung Cancer (40)

USA

Quantitative, telephone survey

N = 1290, representative sample of US adults aged 18 ±current, never and former smokers

Logistic regression

5. Draucker et al. 2019, Health Expectations [41]

USA

Qualitative, telephone semi-structured interviews

N = 40, people eligible for screening, mix of participants and non-participants in screening

Content analysis

6. Greene et al. 2019, Journal of Cancer Education [42]

USA

Qualitative, telephone semi-structured interviews

N = 37, recent participants in lung screening 55–74 years with a 30 year pack history

Iterative inductive content analysis

7. Jonnalagada et al. 2012, Lung Cancer [43]

USA

Quantitative, cross-sectional survey

N = 108, people eligible for lung screening aged 55–74 with a 10 pack year smoking history

Logistic regression

8. Lowenstein 2019, Lung Cancer [44]

USA

Qualitative, interviews

N = 42, screening eligible patients and a convenience sample of doctors from a primary care practice

Thematic content analysis

9. Percac-Lima et al. 2019, Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health [45]

USA

Quantitative, telephone survey

N = 460, 50–79 year old current and former smokers receiving follow up care at a community health centre

Logistic regression and principal components analysis

10. Quaife et al. 2017, Health Expectations [46]

UK

Mixed methods, survey and interviews

N = 184, people aged 40 + , smokers and former smoker with low socio-economic status

Chi squared and Fisher's exact test for survey findings and inductive thematic analysis

11. Quaife et al. 2018, BMC Cancer [47]

UK

Quantitative, national survey

N = 1445, general population of English adults age 50–70 who would be eligible or almost eligible for LCS

Chi squared and logistic regression

12. Raju et al. 2020, Clinical Lung Cancer [48]

USA

Quantitative, cohort analysis and survey with sub-set of patients

N = 818, participants in a retrospective analysis of those invited to lung screening at one hospital. Survey with sub-set of non-participants

Descriptive analysis, multivariate logistic regression, stepwise variable selection

13. Raz et al. 2019, Clinical Lung Cancer [49]

USA

Quantitative, survey

N = 185, current smokers attending a smoking cessation class

Descriptive statistics, chi-squared, univariate and multivariate logistic regressions

14. Roth et al. 2018, PLoS One [50]

USA

Qualitative, in-depth interviews

N = 20, men and women who had completed lung screening

Inductive content analysis

15. Schiffelbein et al. 2020, Journal of Primary Care and Community Health [51]

USA

Mixed methods, concurrent embedded design—survey and focus groups

N = 23, rural residing residents who met the US lung cancer screening eligibility criteria

Deductive and inductive analysis

16. Schnoll et al. 2003, Lung Cancer [52]

USA

Quantitative, survey

N = 172, current and former smokers in a community

Descriptive statistics: frequency distributions. Bivariate analyses, Pearson correlation analysis, hierarchical multiple linear regression

17. See et al. 2020, ERJ Open Research [53]

Australia

Quantitative, survey

N = 283, ever smokers attending outpatient clinics at three Australian hospitals

Descriptive statistics, chi-squared, t-tests

18. Smits et al. 2018, Health Expectations [54]

UK

Quantitative, survey

N = 1007, general population of adults aged 16 or over in Wales

Multivariate regression

19. Stephens et al. 2019, Lung [55]

USA

Quantitative, web-based national survey

N = 756, general US population

Descriptive statistics, bivariate association, multivariable association

20. Tonge et al. 2019, Health Expectations [56]

UK

Qualitative, semi-structured focus groups

N = 33, screening eligible individuals in Manchester, England

Inductive thematic analysis

21. Simmons et al. 2017, Lung Cancer [57]

USA

Qualitative, focus groups

N = 61, high risk people in one part of Florida and PCPs involved in offering screening

Constant comparative method