Shared decision-making may increase lung cancer screening participation with acceptable information quality and does not increase decisional conflict/regret.
This systematic review of 31 US-based studies found that shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening may increase participation (low certainty of evidence) and does not increase decisional conflict or regret (high certainty of evidence). The choice of SDM tool (e.g., decision aid vs. education tool) may not affect uptake, though a decision aid may be superior to an education tool.
This article is automatically generated from the structured evidence profile behind the claim above. Scores reflect the quality and quantity of available research, not clinical advice.
Shared decision-making may increase lung cancer screening participation with acceptable information quality and does not increase decisional conflict/regret. The current body of evidence comprises 1 study and 1 meta-analysis. EvidenceHub rates the overall confidence at 49/100 (low).
The Claim
Shared decision-making may increase lung cancer screening participation with acceptable information quality and does not increase decisional conflict/regret.
This conclusion is most relevant to: Eligible individuals for lung cancer screening in the US (studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies)..
What the Research Shows
The conclusion draws on 1 linked study. Highlights from the cited literature:
- ▸Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. (CHEST pulmonary, 2026) —
How It Works
The proposed biological pathway:
- ▸SDM involves counseling and shared decision-making between patient and provider.
- ▸SDM tools provide information about benefits and harms of screening.
- ▸This may increase patient knowledge and informed participation.
- ▸Result: Increased screening participation without increasing decisional conflict/regret.
Who Might Benefit
Evidence fit by population:
- ▸Eligible individuals for lung cancer screening in the US (studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies).
Recommended Dose
N/A
Limitations & Caveats
Important context when interpreting this evidence:
- ▸High variability in study design, intervention, comparator, and methodology precluded quantitative analysis.
- ▸Few studies addressed uptake, adherence, and harms, and follow-up was short.
- ▸Little evidence on whether effects vary by patient or clinic characteristics.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does shared decision-making increase lung cancer screening participation?▼
The review found low certainty evidence that SDM may increase participation, but the effect is not definitive.
Does shared decision-making cause decisional conflict or regret?▼
No, the review found high certainty evidence that SDM does not increase decisional conflict or regret.
Which SDM tool is best for lung cancer screening?▼
The choice of tool may not affect uptake, but a decision aid may be superior to an education tool.
What are the limitations of the evidence on SDM for lung cancer screening?▼
The evidence is limited by study variability, short follow-up, and few studies addressing clinical outcomes like adherence and harms.
References
- 1.Landsteiner A, Zerzan N, Ullman KE, Anthony M, Claussen AM, Bayer R, Do T, Gustavson AM, Melzer AC, Wilt TJ. “Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review..” CHEST pulmonary, 2026. PMID: 42548364 DOI: 10.1016/j.chpulm.2025.100222