Public perspectives on the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening: A systematic review and mixed-method integrative synthesis

ObjectiveScreening for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography aims to reduce lung cancer mortality, but there is a lack of knowledge about how target populations consider its potential benefits and harms.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of primary empirical studies published in any jurisdiction since 2002 using an integrative meta-synthesis technique. We searched six health and social science databases. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and potentially eligible full-text studies. Quantitative assessments and open-ended perspectives on benefits and harms were extracted and convergently integrated at analysis using a narrative approach. Study quality was assessed.ResultsThe review included 26 quantitative, 18 qualitative, and 5 mixed methods studies. Study quality was acceptable. Lung cancer screening was widely perceived to be personally beneficial for early detection and reassurance. Radiation exposure and screening accuracy were recognised as harms, but these were frequently considered to be justified by early detection of lung cancer. Stigma, anxiety, and fear related to screening procedures and results were pervasive among current smokers. People with low incomes reported not participating in screening because of potential out-of-pocket costs and geographic access.ConclusionsPopulations targeted for lung cancer screening tended to consider screening as personally beneficial and rationalised physical, but not psychological, harms. Screening programmes should be clear about benefits, use non-stigmatising design, and consider equity as a guiding principle.