The Chest Australia Trial: a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to increase consultation rates in smokers at risk of lung cancer.
Aged
Australia
Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Early Detection of Cancer
/ methods
Female
Health Behavior
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Primary Health Care
Respiration Disorders
/ etiology
Self Care
Smokers
/ psychology
Smoking
/ adverse effects
lung cancer
Journal
Thorax
ISSN: 1468-3296
Titre abrégé: Thorax
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0417353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
received:
05
09
2018
revised:
26
11
2018
accepted:
03
12
2018
pubmed:
12
1
2019
medline:
31
8
2019
entrez:
12
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
International research has focused on screening and mass media campaigns to promote earlier patient presentation and detect lung cancer earlier. This trial tested the effect of a behavioural intervention in people at increased risk of lung cancer on help-seeking for respiratory symptoms. Parallel, individually randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were long-term smokers with at least 20 pack-years, aged 55 and above. The CHEST intervention entailed a consultation to discuss and implement a self-help manual, followed by self-monitoring reminders to encourage help-seeking for respiratory symptoms. The control group received a brief discussion about lung health. Both groups had baseline spirometry. Telephone randomisation was conducted, 1:1, stratified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score and general practice. Participants could not be blinded; data extraction and statistical analyses were performed blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was respiratory consultation rates. We randomised 551 participants (274 intervention, 277 control) from whom the primary outcome was determined for 542 (269 intervention, 273 control). There was a 40% relative increase in respiratory consultations in the intervention group: (adjusted rates (95% CI) intervention 0.57 (0.47 to 0.70), control 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52), relative rate 1.40 (1.08 to 1.82); p=0.0123). There were no significant differences in time to first respiratory consultation, total consultation rates or measures of psychological harm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $A1289 per additional respiratory consultation. A behavioural intervention can significantly increase consulting for respiratory symptoms in patients at increased risk of lung cancer. This intervention could have an important role in primary care as part of a broader approach to improve respiratory health in patients at higher risk. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (1261300039 3752). This was registered pre-results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
International research has focused on screening and mass media campaigns to promote earlier patient presentation and detect lung cancer earlier. This trial tested the effect of a behavioural intervention in people at increased risk of lung cancer on help-seeking for respiratory symptoms.
METHODS
Parallel, individually randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were long-term smokers with at least 20 pack-years, aged 55 and above. The CHEST intervention entailed a consultation to discuss and implement a self-help manual, followed by self-monitoring reminders to encourage help-seeking for respiratory symptoms. The control group received a brief discussion about lung health. Both groups had baseline spirometry. Telephone randomisation was conducted, 1:1, stratified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score and general practice. Participants could not be blinded; data extraction and statistical analyses were performed blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was respiratory consultation rates.
RESULTS
We randomised 551 participants (274 intervention, 277 control) from whom the primary outcome was determined for 542 (269 intervention, 273 control). There was a 40% relative increase in respiratory consultations in the intervention group: (adjusted rates (95% CI) intervention 0.57 (0.47 to 0.70), control 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52), relative rate 1.40 (1.08 to 1.82); p=0.0123). There were no significant differences in time to first respiratory consultation, total consultation rates or measures of psychological harm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $A1289 per additional respiratory consultation.
CONCLUSIONS
A behavioural intervention can significantly increase consulting for respiratory symptoms in patients at increased risk of lung cancer. This intervention could have an important role in primary care as part of a broader approach to improve respiratory health in patients at higher risk.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (1261300039 3752). This was registered pre-results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30630891
pii: thoraxjnl-2018-212506
doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212506
pmc: PMC6484693
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
362-370Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409
pubmed: 21714641
Med J Aust. 2017 Nov 20;207(10):436-442
pubmed: 29129177
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Jan;63(606):e47-54
pubmed: 23336469
Br J Health Psychol. 2013 Feb;18(1):45-65
pubmed: 22536840
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012 Apr;17(2):110-8
pubmed: 22008712
Patient. 2014;7(1):85-96
pubmed: 24271592
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 4;11(11):e0165677
pubmed: 27814375
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 28;12(8):e0183647
pubmed: 28846706
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Aug;13(8):1094-1105
pubmed: 29689434
Br J Cancer. 2015 Jan 6;112(1):207-16
pubmed: 25461805
Br J Cancer. 2017 Nov 7;117(10):1459-1469
pubmed: 28926528
Cancer Imaging. 2011 Dec 28;11:237-46
pubmed: 22201671
Br J Cancer. 2009 Dec 3;101 Suppl 2:S92-S101
pubmed: 19956172
Fam Pract. 2013 Jun;30(3):294-301
pubmed: 23363540
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(12):1231-72
pubmed: 26431866
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Mar 4;160(5):330-8
pubmed: 24378917
JAMA. 2016 Apr 5;315(13):1372-7
pubmed: 27046365
Thorax. 1999 Jul;54(7):581-6
pubmed: 10377201
Fam Pract. 2017 Nov 16;34(6):740-746
pubmed: 29155969
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 May;26(3):
pubmed: 28497588
Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 31;112 Suppl 1:S92-107
pubmed: 25734382
Radiology. 2012 May;263(2):578-83
pubmed: 22454506
Aust J Rural Health. 2008 Dec;16(6):355-62
pubmed: 19032208
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Apr;13(4):353-65
pubmed: 22365494
Br J Cancer. 2012 Oct 9;107(8):1220-6
pubmed: 22996611
Ann Intern Med. 1991 Apr 15;114(8):657-61
pubmed: 2003712
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Jun;40(3):205-6
pubmed: 27028577
Lung Cancer. 2014 Jan;83(1):51-5
pubmed: 24268382
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2014 Dec 11;1(1):e000067
pubmed: 25553249
Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Sep;62(602):e605-15
pubmed: 22947581
BMJ Open. 2015 May 18;5(5):e008046
pubmed: 25986641
Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 31;112 Suppl 1:S6-13
pubmed: 25734397
Thorax. 2009 Sep;64(9):749-56
pubmed: 19717709
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Oct;191:134-142
pubmed: 28917622
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):1342-50
pubmed: 25282284
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2015 Nov;16(6):618-22
pubmed: 25660904
Br J Cancer. 2017 Jan;116(3):293-302
pubmed: 28072761