Recent research highlighted the powerful impact that low-dose CT screenings can have on lung cancer death rates. However, another new analysis finds websites for such screening programs are largely missing the mark in connecting with potential patients.
A team of thoracic radiologists recently came to this conclusion after scouring nearly 260 lung cancer screening websites from across the U.S. They found that less than 2% of such websites actually met an American Medical Association recommendation that health information should be written at a grade 6 level or lower. And just 26% linked to well-known educational websites on lung cancer screening, according to the analysis, published Friday, Jan. 31, in JAMA Network Open.
“There appears to be marked variability in the informational content of U.S. lung cancer screening program websites,” wrote the team, led by Staci Gagne, MD, a radiologist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Efforts to improve website content and readability may be warranted,” they added.
To reach their conclusions, the authors pinpointed hundreds of screening websites in September 2018 through a Google search. Radiologist researchers ticked off a checklist at each domain to assess reading levels, word counts and the average time it would take to absorb the information. Gagne and colleagues were motivated by past studies, demonstrating that low-dose CT can drop lung cancer mortality by more than 20%. And yet, only about 2% of 8 million eligible individuals are actually screened. Oftentimes, confusion is a big barrier.
“Healthcare professionals have found it difficult to cover lung cancer screening optimally within the time constraints of a patient visit,” the team noted. “Many patients turn to the internet for more information.”
Gagne et al. found that word counts on such websites ranged anywhere from 73 to 4,410, with a median of about 570. And average reading times clocked in from less than half a minute to upward of almost 20. Meanwhile, the median reading level landed at grade 10. And they found wide ranges cited for the upper age of eligibility—some said 80, recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, while others offered age 74, the National Lung Screening Trial’s upper marker.
Researchers also noted that just 45% of sites surveyed explained the possible risks of lung cancer screening, “which may represent a missed opportunity for patient education.” And while 75% mentioned cost, only about half detailed that Medicare and private payers often cover such screenings.
“Patients understandably have questions about the immediate and downstream costs of lung cancer screening, and lack of such information may discourage participation in such programs,” Gagne and colleagues wrote.
Marty Stempniak has covered healthcare since 2012, with his byline appearing in the American Hospital Association's member magazine, Modern Healthcare and McKnight's. Prior to that, he wrote about village government and local business for his hometown newspaper in Oak Park, Illinois. He won a Peter Lisagor and Gold EXCEL awards in 2017 for his coverage of the opioid epidemic.