Leveraging Social Media to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Awareness, Knowledge and Uptake in High-Risk Populations
Phase: NA
Conditions: Lung Cancer
Sponsor: Hackensack Meridian Health

CLINICAL STUDY PROTOCOL 
 
 
 
Leveraging Social Media to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Awareness, 
Knowledge and Uptake in High-Risk Populations 
 
 
Protocol Version 
04.20.2023 
Version 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.​
 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
Study Personnel 
Principal Investigator/Department:  
Lisa Carter-Bawa, PhD, APRN, ANP-C, FAAN 
Director, Cancer Prevention Precision Control Institute @ the Center for Discovery & Innovation 
Lisa.CarterBawa@hmh-cdi.org 
Sub-I(s): n/a 
Statistical support: Dr. Patrick Monahan (Indiana University); Mr. James Slaven (Indiana University) 
Protocol Development support (if applicable): N/A 
Name and information of sponsor: National Cancer Institute, Grant #R01CA263662 
Research Locations (all non-HMH locations): 
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY ** 
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY ** 
GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, Washington, DC ** 
** Please note that this is a national study using Facebook advertisement to recruit and intervene 
with an educational intervention. The 3 research locations listed above reflect the institutions of the 
collaborators/co-investigators involved with the study and represent personnel only. There are no 
research recruitment, enrollment, or data collection activities occurring at these locations. 
 
2 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
Abbreviations 
Abbreviation  
Explanation 
ACS 
American Cancer Society 
FB 
Facebook 
FBTA 
Facebook-targeted Advertisement 
LCS 
Lung Cancer Screening 
LDCT 
Low dose computed tomography 
USPSTF 
U. S. Preventive Services Task Force 
 
 
 
Revision History : 
Revision # 
Version Date 
Summary of Changes 
Consent Change? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
Summary  
Study Title 
Leveraging Social Media to Increase Lung 
Cancer Screening Awareness, Knowledge, and 
Uptake in High-Risk Populations 
Study Design 
Randomized Controlled Trial 
Primary Objective 
Aim 1. Examine the use of a social media 
platform (i.e., Facebook) to reach high-risk 
individuals eligible for lung screening. 
Aim 2. Compare the effectiveness of a 
computer-tailored health communication and 
decision support tool (LungTalk) to a 
non-tailored ACS Lung Screening Informational 
Video on lung screening: 1) knowledge; 2) 
health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived 
benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy); 3) 
occurrence of a patient-clinician discussion 
about lung screening; and 4) uptake and 
completion. 
Aim 3. Explore the sustainability of a social 
media-based approach among key stakeholders 
to increase lung screening awareness, 
knowledge, adoption, and uptake among 
screening-eligible individuals. 
Secondary Objective(s) 
n/a 
Research Intervention(s)  
1)​ LungTalk (computer-tailored health 
communication and decision support 
tool) 
2)​ Non-tailored educational video (Go2 
Foundation’s ‘Screening Saves Lives! 
Learn More About Low Dose CT Lung 
Cancer Screening) 
4 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
Study Population 
Adults aged 55-80 years who currently smoke 
or quit within the past 15 years with a 30 
pack-year tobacco smoking history 
Sample Size 
500 
Study Duration for individual participants 
6 months 
 
1 – Introduction    
While lung screening is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),1,2 has the 
potential to detect lung cancer at earlier, more treatable stages, has a 20% lung cancer-related 
mortality reduction in long-term smokers3,4 and is covered by Medicare and other health insurers,5 
population uptake has been abysmal. It has been 9 years since the USPSTF released its 
recommendation, yet less than 5% of screening-eligible Americans have been screened.6 
Screening-eligible individuals are generally unaware of early detection of lung cancer.7-9 Given that 
high-risk individuals are not aware that lung screening exists, it is essential to employ novel 
community-focused strategies to increase awareness about lung screening so as to reach high-risk, 
screening-eligible individuals. Social media offers untapped opportunities to address the lack of 
awareness and knowledge that stymie lung screening uptake. Because Facebook (FB) has the ability 
to target advertisements to individual users by key demographic and interest areas within their 
profile, Facebook-targeted advertisement (FBTA) offers an ideal platform to target and deliver a 
public-facing, tailored health communication and decision support intervention to increase 
awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening among those most at risk. To facilitate both 
awareness of the option to screen and meaningful patient-clinician discussions about screening, 
effective communication strategies are needed to prepare patients to initiate (“Ask your doctor”) and 
to have these important discussions with their primary care clinician. To foster both, our team has 
developed LungTalk,10 a novel computer-tailored health communication and decision support tool to 
(1) increase awareness and knowledge about lung screening; (2) decrease perceived barriers to 
screening based upon misinformation; and (3) increase screening rates among individuals whose 
decision after a shared decision-making discussion with their primary care clinician is to screen. 
LungTalk currently tailors on smoking status because our prior research revealed individuals who 
used to smoke feel further stigmatized when messaging is crafted as if they still smoke. The current 
version of LungTalk has been pilot tested and indicated that tailored information for lung screening 
more than doubled total knowledge scores regarding lung cancer risk and screening compared to a 
non-tailored lung screening information sheet. In addition, our prior work also revealed the top 
barriers screening-eligible individuals face when considering lung screening. Therefore, during the 
first 9 months of the study (prior to any participants being enrolled), refinements to the master 
content library of LungTalk will be undertaken with our internal IT team at MSK to insert video 
testimonials for perceived barriers to lung screening and algorithms for the perceived barriers 
5 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
content. 
2 – Background 
2.1. Background/literature review (make sure you provide references) 
2.1.a. Scientific Background 
Lung cancer kills more people than colorectal, breast, prostate and cervical cancers 
combined. Lung screening with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung 
cancer-related mortality by identifying lung cancer at earlier, more treatable stages.3,4,12 
However, population-level screening efforts are only effective when appropriate, high risk 
individuals are aware and engaged. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid agreed 
to cover lung screening in response to the 2013 USPSTF Grade B recommendation for 
individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or 
have quit within the past 15 years.5,12,13 In response to new scientific evidence, recent 
updated recommendations have decreased the minimum screening eligible age to 50 and 
pack-year history to 20.14 As part of Medicare’s coverage decision, in order for lung screening 
to be reimbursed, a shared decision-making and counseling visit must be conducted with one 
or more patient decision aids.5 Medicare’s unprecedented policy fostered an environment 
conducive to advancing understanding of the shared decision-making process for lung 
screening. However, one of the greatest barriers to effective lung screening implementation 
and uptake is lack of awareness.7,9,15 New and novel ways to increase awareness, knowledge 
about lung screening and adoption – in high-risk populations – are essential to support 
effective population-based lung screening implementation. It is likely the majority of 
screening-eligible individuals are not highly engaged consumers of the healthcare system. So 
how do we raise awareness about lung screening? Solutions must be community-based, 
engaging and readily accessible from the information ecosystem in which the general public 
consumes health and other information in the 21st century. 
This study builds upon rigorous preliminary research conducted by our team.7-10,14-17 We have 
repeatedly successfully leveraged social media to recruit large numbers of lung 
screening-eligible individuals nationwide,17,18 developed and psychometrically validated 
scales to measure lung cancer screening health beliefs,16 and developed LungTalk.10,14  
As noted, this study uses a social media-based platform to target high-risk, screening-eligible 
individuals in the community to deliver a tailored health communication and decision 
support intervention. This strategy is based upon our prior highly successful experience with 
recruitment via FBTA. Because the age demographic of FB specifically has increased over the 
past decade, this makes FB the ideal social media platform for this work. Of the 226 million 
FB users in the U.S., 30.8% of those are aged 50 years and older.19 The age demographic of 
the average FB user has increased over the past decade, and our prior studies have 
repeatedly demonstrated the success of recruiting lung screening-eligible individuals using 
FBTA.14,16-18 Historically low levels of public trust in expert entities such as the government, 
6 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
the news media, and the healthcare system as well as growing awareness of the new cancer 
information ecosystem led us to consider social media as a novel cancer communication 
platform. FBTA functions to provide “precision marketing”, sending the right content to the 
right person at the right time via the right channel.  
Our first study to recruit lung screening-eligible individuals (aged 55-77 years, individuals 
who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years, and have a 30 pack-year history or 
more) in 2015 was not only efficient and cost effective,17,18 but also established our teams’ 
ability to recruit a lung screening-eligible sample that is varied socioeconomically and 
educationally. In this initial study, an 18-day FBTA campaign costing $500 yielded a national 
sample of 331 lung screening-eligible individuals. During the 18 day period, 1,121 unique FB 
users clicked the recruitment ad and were redirected to our secure online survey platform 
and completed the screening survey. Of those, 423 were eligible and of those, 331 enrolled 
and completed the survey study yielding a 78.3% participation rate.18 Since 2015, we have 
had repeated success using FBTA to recruit lung screening-eligible individuals into our 
subsequent studies,9,14,17 including a study where we manipulated the targeting criteria 
(including zip codes) to recruit a diverse lung screening-eligible sample in Indiana.9 Given our 
prior successful work with FBTA, we do not anticipate problems using this social media 
platform to target screening-eligible individuals in the community to recruit and then deliver 
a tailored health communication and decision support intervention to increase awareness 
and knowledge about lung screening. 
Frandsen and colleagues (2014) demonstrated that participants recruited to smoking 
cessation randomized controlled trials with FBTA did not differ from those recruited by 
traditional methods on smoking characteristics or demographics.20 Our team extended 
Fransden’s work by demonstrating that participants age 55 years and older recruited to a 
web-based survey study about lung screening did not differ sociodemographically from those 
recruited by traditional methods further supporting the ability and feasibility to reach lung 
screening-eligible individuals in the community before they engage with the healthcare 
system.18 FBTA has well-established utility to reach young adults who smoke,21-23 and our 
team has clearly demonstrated FB’s effectiveness for recruiting older individuals who smoke 
long-term.18 FB is popular with 69% of American adult users and has grown in use among 
older individuals.24,25 
Tailored health communication interventions have been used to promote health behavior 
change, are more effective compared to non-tailored ones,26-29 and have been shown to 
improve knowledge and change health beliefs regarding colorectal 30,31 and breast cancer 
screening.32-34 Our teams’ preliminary work indicated that tailored information for lung 
screening more than doubled total knowledge scores regarding lung cancer risk and 
screening compared to a non-tailored lung screening information sheet.14 Tailored messages 
provide customized information that is more likely to be viewed as personally relevant and, 
7 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
as a result, increase engagement in important healthcare options such as prevention and 
early detection efforts. Individuals eligible for lung screening may experience stigma or 
feelings of blame and shame secondary to their history of smoking.7 Therefore, it is critical 
that public facing health communication and decision support interventions educate and 
decrease perceived barriers to screening but do so in a way that does not increase stigma. 
Early health communication tools and decision aids about lung screening have primarily 
focused on calculating personal risk for the development of lung cancer and subsequent 
recommendations to screen based upon calculated risk.35-37 These tools range in level of 
complexity and delivery including pamphlets and brochures, videos, educational scripts, and 
computer programs.36-40 These tools can also be deployed in multiple formats such as by 
mail, telephone, in person and via the internet. Although the state of the science is still early 
for a comprehensive systematic review, there are a number of early reports of patient-facing 
health communication tool and decision aid development, feasibility and efficacy.38-41 
Volk and colleagues developed the video, Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? This 
6-minute video provides information about risk factors for lung cancer and harms and 
benefits of lung screening as well as vignettes depicting trade-offs between harms and 
benefits to clarify values. Initial feasibility showed this decision aid increased knowledge (p < 
0.01) and supported readiness to make a decision to screen as reflected in values clarity 
scores.38 Lau and colleagues developed a web-based decision aid available publicly at the 
website, www.shouldiscreen.com, using an established prediction model to compute 
baseline lung cancer risk and an individual’s chance of benefiting from, and risk of being 
harmed by, screening.5 Knowledge of lung cancer and screening increased (p < 0.001) and 
decisional conflict decreased (p < 0.001) in initial feasibility testing.35 Other 
commercially-developed lung screening decision aids and tools focus on calculating personal 
risk for the development of lung cancer with subsequent screening recommendations based 
upon the calculated risk. 36,37 Dharod and colleagues (2019) examined the feasibility of a 
digital health outreach strategy via patient portal.40 Of the 1,000 portal invitations they sent, 
86% read the invitation and 40% (n=404) of those visited the interactive website which then 
accessed screening eligibility. Similar to other patient decision aids, the mPATH Lung 
Interactive website calculates risk for lung cancer, but does not tailor beyond personalized 
risk and development of this tool is atheoretical. McDonnell and colleagues (2018) 
developed and tested the feasibility of a patient decision aid for use during a clinic 
consultation and is theoretically grounded in Conflict Theory.41 Four clinicians and 20 patients 
found the decision aid helpful.42 The ACS developed the web-based video, Lung Screening 
Informational Video (LSIV), as an educational tool to assist with patient decision-making 
regarding lung screening.43 The video reviews benefits and risks of screening, how screening 
is performed with an LDCT, and to discuss screening with a primary care clinician. However, 
lung screening is a complex decision; current tools are not tailored to the individual and do 
8 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
not address issues that may be personally relevant to the individual weighing the decision to 
screen, or not, for lung cancer. 
 
3 – Rationale, Objectives and Hypothesis  
3.1. Study Rationale/Problem Statement/Research question or Study significance 
LungTalk and leveraging FBTA addresses the call to develop and test multi-level, cancer 
communication interventions using innovative methods and designs. Our long term goal is to 
increase lung cancer screening uptake among appropriate, high-risk individuals nationwide. 
3.2. Hypothesis (if applicable) 
1) Leveraging Facebook targeted advertisement will increase reach to screening-eligible 
individuals at the community level. 
2) A tailored communication intervention will result in increased lung cancer screening 
uptake compared to a non-tailored communication intervention. 
 
3.3. Primary Objective 
Our overall objective in this application is to test the effectiveness of: 1) leveraging a 
well-established, social media-based platform to target screening-eligible individuals in the 
community and 2) a novel, tailored health communication and decision support intervention related 
to lung screening (LungTalk).  
 
3.4. Primary Outcome Variable(s) 
a) patient-perceived lung cancer screening decision quality; b) screening completion among patients 
deciding to screen; and c) stage of readiness for smoking cessation among current smokers 
 
4 - Study Design 
4.1 General Design 
Using a randomized controlled trial design, we will randomize 500 screening-eligible individuals 
recruited through Facebook from diverse zip codes nationwide to receive either a tailored health 
communication intervention (LungTalk) or non-tailored American Cancer Society (ACS) Lung 
Screening Informational Video. We do recognize that individuals on FB who have identified smoking 
as an interest in their profile may differ from individuals who qualify for lung screening but have not 
identified smoking interest in their profile. Future research will explore these potential differences 
and alternative methods of reaching screening-eligible individuals in the community for the purpose 
of increasing knowledge and awareness about this screening option. 
Finally, we will also use qualitative methodology to conduct key informant interviews with 
stakeholders to explore the sustainability of a social media-based approach to increase lung 
9 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
screening awareness, knowledge, and uptake in the community. We will recruit key stakeholders 
(N=20) representing administrators (healthcare system and screening centers), key screening center 
personnel, advocacy organizations (i.e., LUNGevity, Dusty Joy Foundation), and national organizations 
(American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer). As members 
of the National Lung Cancer Roundtable, Drs. Carter-Bawa (PI) and Ostroff (Co-I) have 
well-established relationships with key stakeholders involved in the national implementation of lung 
screening and will leverage these relationships to recruit key stakeholders for the individual interview 
component of the study. 
 
4.1.1 Study Duration (if applicable) 
Total study duration = 5 years (2022 – 2027).  
Participants are enrolled in the study and have one follow-up time point in the study at 6 months 
post intervention 
4.1.2 Number of Study Sites  
N/A – national social media-based recruitment, enrollment, and intervention 
 
4.2 Study Population 
4.2.2. Eligibility Criteria 
a. Inclusion criteria  
6.1​
Participant Inclusion Criteria for Intervention (Aim 2) 
●​ Age 50-80 years;  
●​ ≥20-pack-year smoking history;  
●​ Individuals who currently smoke or quit smoking within the past 15 years;  
6.2​
Participant Exclusion Criteria for Intervention (Aim 2) 
●​ Previously undergone LDCT for early detection of lung cancer, have a lung nodule 
or nodules that are currently being followed 
●​ Has ever been diagnosed with lung cancer 
●​ Individuals with impaired decision-making (because our primary outcome is 
decision-making, we will not include individuals with impaired decision-making) 
●​ 6.3​
Participant Inclusion Criteria for Key Stakeholders (Aim 3) 
 
▪​
Age 18 or older 
▪​
Employed in a capacity that has an interest in lung cancer screening such as, 
but not limited to, administrators (healthcare system, screening centers), key 
screening center personnel, advocacy organizations (i.e., LUNGevity, Dusty Joy 
Foundation), national organizations (American Cancer Society, American Lung 
Association, GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer). 
10 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
 
4.2.3. Vulnerable populations (if applicable). Vulnerable populations include children, prisoners, 
cognitively impaired individuals, economically or educationally disadvantaged individuals, 
employees, students. When vulnerable populations are included, indicate what safeguards are in 
place to minimize coercion or undue influence to participate. 
n/a 
4.2.4. Withdrawal criteria (as applicable) 
n/a 
4.3. Study procedures 
4.3.a. Subject Identification 
REDCap will be used to identify and determine the eligibility of the participants who are 
redirected from the Facebook targeted advertisement (see 4.3.c. for description of Facebook 
targeted advertisement). REDCap will also be utilized for the consent process and to 
randomize the participants. Once the participant is randomized, the study team will register 
the participant in CTMS.  
 
4.3.b. Data for Identification 
A screening form to confirm eligibility will be completed prior to completion of the baseline 
survey and randomization to intervention arm. The screening survey will assess: 
●​ Age 50-80 years;  
●​ ≥20-pack-year smoking history;  
●​ Individuals who currently smoke or quit smoking within the past 15 years;  
●​ Previous LDCT for early detection of lung cancer, lung nodule or nodules that are 
currently being followed 
●​ Has ever been diagnosed with lung cancer 
 4.3.c. Screening and Recruitment Process 
We will use a highly successful recruitment strategy via FB Targeted Advertisement (FBTA)18 
to recruit screening-eligible individuals from Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and 
Oregon. We chose geographically-diverse states with a 15.9% or greater adult smoking rate 
representing all regions of the U.S. making the plausibility of screening-eligible individuals in 
the area high in addition to offering racial and ethnic diversity. We have chosen FB as our 
social media platform for recruitment in part because, as of 2021, individuals aged 65 and 
older are the fastest growing demographic group on Facebook (FB). FB use in individuals 
born in 1945 or earlier has nearly doubled in the past three years. Further, out of the 2.7 
billion FB users, over 32 million are age 50 and older – the age for lung screening eligibility.  
FB has the ability to “target” an advertisement by demographics and keywords listed in each 
individual FB user’s profile or interest list. The FB user’s interest list includes a wide range of 
details a user can indicate when setting up and/or maintaining their profile that they have an 
11 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
interest in such as groups, hobbies, lifestyle choices, behaviors, points of view, specific 
organizations and more. This allows us to purposively sample people who are age 50 years 
and older, indicate smoking as an interest and reside in a particular state, city, or zip code. 
Using this approach, as we have in prior studies,9,14,17,18 we can target our advertisement on 
FB using the following keywords: cigarette, tobacco, nicotine replacement therapy, nicotine 
gum, electronic cigarette, smoking. Guided by the safety and monitoring guidelines for 
researchers using social media,48 our approach includes design and close monitoring of the 
FBTA to ensure all methodologic and ethical standards are upheld.  
We are partnering with the GO2 Foundation to identify Lung Cancer Screening Centers of 
Excellence (as certified by the GO2 Foundation)49 to identify primary care networks to 
connect individuals who seek a screening referral request but do not have a primary care 
clinician. There are more than 600 Screening Centers of Excellence nationwide. There are 
126 Screening Centers of Excellence in the 5 states in which we will conduct the proposed 
study. These centers are well-established, well-connected, and strong collaborators with 
their local primary care networks making them the ideal national partner to connect 
participants without a primary care clinician to one for the patient-clinician discussion about 
screening prior to referral. They also can link individuals to care regardless of insurance 
status through federally qualified health centers and community health centers fostering 
access to high quality screening for low income and other vulnerable subpopulations. 
A screening form to confirm eligibility and baseline assessment will be completed prior to 
receiving the intervention. 
Assessment or Measure 
Screening  
Baseline 
(T1) 
Screening/eligibility Assessment 
X 
 
Demographic and Health Status Characteristics 
 
X 
Knowledge: Lung Cancer Screening 
 
X 
Perceived Risk of Lung Cancer Scale16 
 
X 
Perceived Benefits of Lung Cancer Screening Scale16 
 
X 
Perceived Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Scale16 
 
X 
Self-Efficacy for Lung Cancer Screening Scale16 
 
X 
Self-report of Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion about Lung 
Cancer Screening 
 
X 
Self-report via the stages of adoption algorithm for screening with 
verification process 
 
X 
Self-report of upcoming visit with primary care provider scheduled 
 
X 
4.3.1. Study discontinuation (if applicable)​
N/A 
4.3.2. Concomitant medication (if applicable)​ N/A 
4.4. Risks and Benefits  
There should be minimal side effects or discomfort associated with participating in this 
research study. One potential risk of participation for participants is loss of confidentiality 
12 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
and privacy. However, when we collect identifying data, unique code numbers will always 
replace patient names in the research database. Locked file cabinets will be used to store 
materials with identifying information. Participants may refuse any part of study 
participation.  
Cognizant of the potential risks to privacy in social media research, we will follow 
methodological and ethical considerations for recruitment and intervention delivery 
published by thought leaders including Dr. Carter-Harris.55 The present trial will follow the 
formal safety and monitoring guidelines for researchers using social media outlined by 
Russomanno and colleagues (2019)48 through protocols defining FB page administration, 
notification settings and monitoring, recruitment cycle duration, inclusion and exclusion 
terms, and public page settings and moderation.48 These guidelines are described below:  
Defining Facebook Page Administration. The FBTA will be posted through publicly accessible 
Facebook pages associated with the study PI’s research lab. To ensure adequate monitoring 
of the FBTA, at least 2 research team members (Dr. Lisa Carter-Bawa, PI and Ms. Zulfia 
Pathan, Research Project Associate) will be assigned as administrators of the page and 
advertisement settings. 
Notifications. To assure continuous monitoring, all page and advertisement administrators 
will have the Facebook app downloaded to their mobile phones prior to beginning study 
recruitment and ensure that all notifications and interactions with the recruitment 
advertisement are being monitored. 
Recruitment Cycle Duration. Advertisements should be posted for, at maximum, 7 days per 
cycle to minimize burnout to research study staff during recruitment. 
Inclusion and Exclusion Terms. To target the Facebook advertisements to the study 
population of interest, researchers should use inclusion and exclusion terms based on study 
criteria. 
Public Page Settings and Moderation. Researchers may restrict who can post directly to the 
public Facebook page by turning off the Visitor Posts feature in order to ensure only page 
administrators can post directly to the public site. 
An additional side effect considered to be minimal and far outweighed by the potential 
benefits of participating in this study is participants may find it stressful to answer questions 
regarding their smoking history and behaviors especially in the context of lung cancer 
screening. If an individual reports significant distress, an appropriate referral will be made. 
We do not expect any adverse events because of this intervention.  
5 – Methods  
5.3. Study intervention (including schedule of events and study visits) 
13 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
Participants randomized to LungTalk or non-tailored video will watch the web-based online 
videos and then complete study assessments as per the schedule of assessments in Section 
5.5. Please see below for a full description of the study intervention. 
LungTalk (https://www.lungtalkhmh.org/)is a 10-15 minute long computer-tailored health 
communication and decision-making tool that is theoretically grounded in the Conceptual 
Model on Lung Cancer Screening Participation.41 This model links the Health Belief Model to 
the Precaution Adoption Process Model and includes key psychological variables (e.g., 
stigma, mistrust, fatalism, fear and worry) as factors that may influence an individuals’ 
decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer.41 The tool as a whole serves as a cue to action for 
a screening-eligible individual to engage in a discussion with their primary care clinician 
about the option to screen, or not, for lung cancer. LungTalk is an interactive computer 
program that includes audio, video, and animation segments with tailoring algorithms for 
scripts presented from a master content library.10 LungTalk tailors initially on smoking status. 
Our prior research revealed individuals who used to smoke feel further stigmatized when 
messaging is crafted as if they still smoke. Early in the program, the user is asked to indicate 
if they currently smoke or if they quit smoking and the content has been adjusted to respect 
an individuals’ current smoking status. In addition, during the study start-up phase (prior to 
participants being enrolled), LungTalk’s master content library will be enhanced to tailor 
content based upon personal barriers to lung screening. The top 5 barriers (cost, worry, lack 
of symptoms, time, stigma) have been identified in our recently completed study testing the 
Conceptual Model on Lung Cancer Screening from the perspective of the individual (R15 
CA208543). Using a similar process as performed in prior studies of which Dr. Carter-Bawa 
was Co-I (R01CA196243; MPIs: Paskett/Champion; PCORI IHS-1507-31333; PI: Rawl), Drs. 
Carter-Bawa, Banerjee, and Rawl will create brief video clip testimonials with dedicated 
in-house resources using MSK Information Technology who manage and maintain LungTalk 
programming and servers to address each barrier. These short (~2-3 min) video clips will be 
embedded into the master content library and tailoring algorithms added to the master 
programming of LungTalk. After the lung scan video, a brief modified version of the 
Perceived Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Scale will be administered on screen. Based 
upon the users’ identification of personal barriers (i.e., cost, worry about finding something, 
lack of symptoms or current lung issues, lack of knowledge about the screening process, 
stigma), LungTalk will tailor to those specific barriers with the brief video clip testimonials 
from the master content library. Following this component, LungTalk concludes by offering 
the option of saving or printing a tailored print-out at the end for individuals to use as a 
discussion prompt with their primary care clinician.10 This print-out highlights key points 
related to lung health and screening tailored by smoking status, offers question prompts the 
user can use to initiate a discussion with their primary care clinician, and tailors based upon 
questions that remain important to the user that they wish to discuss further with their 
primary care clinician.10 Messaging in LungTalk is presented at an 8th grade level, and in 
14 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
consideration of different ways people like to learn, the content is presented via narration as 
well as key text on screen.10 
GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer Lung Screening Informational Video (ADD LINK) is a 
non-tailored educational brochure and link to the video, Screening Saves Lives! Learn More 
About Low Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening produced by the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer 
that will be delivered via emailed or texted link to the participant. 
5.4. Assignment / randomization (if applicable) 
After eligibility is confirmed in REDCap, participants will be registered in the CTMS system.  
Upon completion of baseline assessment, participants will be randomized using the REDCap 
randomization module to one of the two arms (i.e., LungTalk or non-tailored GO2 video) 
using a stratified block design stratifying by smoking status (current vs former). Stratified 
random assignment will ensure the two groups are comparable in distribution on smoking 
status, a salient variable for lung screening behavior noted in our prior work.9,17,41 
Consolidated Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for RCTs will be 
followed. 
5.5. Section of instruments (to include for all studies with a social behavioral intervention) 
15 
Table 1. Measures and Timepoints of Assessment 
Constructs 
Assessment or 
Measure 
# of 
Items 
Time to 
Complete 
(min) 
Validated? 
Baseline 
(T1) 
1 Wk 
Follow-Up 
(T2) 
Eligbility 
Screening Survey 
3 
1 
N 
 
 
Demographics 
Demographic and 
Health Status 
Characteristics 
20 
5 
N 
X 
 
Knowledge 
Knowledge: Lung 
Cancer Screening 
9 
5 
N 
X 
X 
Perceived 
Risk 
Perceived Risk of Lung 
Cancer Scale16 
3 
1 
Y 
X 
X 
Perceived 
Benefits 
Perceived Benefits of 
Lung Cancer 
Screening Scale16 
6 
3 
Y 
X 
X 
Perceived 
Barriers 
Perceived Barriers to 
Lung Cancer 
Screening Scale16 
17 
10 
Y 
X 
X 
Self-Efficacy 
Self-Efficacy for Lung 
Cancer Screening 
Scale16 
9 
5 
Y 
X 
X 
Occurrence of 
a 
Patient-Clinici
an Discussion 
Self-report of 
Occurrence of a 
Patient-Clinician 
Discussion about Lung 
Cancer Screening 
1 
1 
N 
X 
X 
Screening 
Uptake 
Self-report via the 
stages of adoption 
algorithm for screening 
with verification 
process 
1 
1 
N 
X 
X 
Upcoming 
PCP Visit 
Self-report of 
upcoming visit with 
1 
1 
N 
X 
X 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
 
1.​ Screening 
Survey 
will be used to determine eligibility. See Section 4.3.b above for details. 
 
2.​ Demographic and Health Status Characteristics will be assessed using items we have used in 
prior studies. These include age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, income level, 
perceived financial status, insurance status, marital status, employment status, smoking 
status (if former, how long since quit in months), and family history of lung cancer. 
 
3.​ Total Knowledge of Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a 9-item multi-dimensional 
scale used in our preliminary study adapted from literature specific to lung cancer.16 Several 
aspects will be assessed, including knowledge of lung cancer, risk, and screening. The range 
of scores is 0 to 9. 
 
4.​ Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales described in the preliminary studies section will 
be used to measure perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy. 
Content and construct validity have been established. Internal consistency reliability was 
established by our team with a sample of 497 screening-eligible long-term smokers: 
 
i.​ Perceived Risk of Lung Cancer is a 3-item scale with Likert-type responses. The range of 
scores is 3 to 12 (higher perceived risk of lung cancer). Cronbach’s α was 0.88 in our 
preliminary study.16 
ii.​ Perceived Benefits of Lung Cancer Screening is a 6-item scale with responses ranging 
from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. The range of scores is 6 to 24 (higher 
perceived benefits) with a Cronbach’s α of 0.76 in our preliminary study.16 
iii.​ Perceived Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening. This scale has 17 items with four-point 
Likert responses where 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree. The range of scores 
is 17 to 68 (higher perceived barriers) with a Cronbach’s α of 0.87 in our preliminary 
psychometric study.16  
iv.​ Self-Efficacy for Lung Cancer Screening. This scale has 9 items with a four-point Likert 
response option to assess individual beliefs about ability to arrange and complete an 
LDCT to screen for lung cancer. The range of scores is 9 to 36 (higher levels of 
self-efficacy) with a Cronbach’s α of 0.92 in our preliminary psychometric study.16 
 
5.​ Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed 
with a single item requiring dichotomous (Y/N) response: Have you had a discussion with 
your primary care clinician about lung cancer screening? 
 
6.​ Lung Cancer Screening Uptake is the primary outcome and will be assessed via self-report 
via the stages of adoption algorithm for lung screening. The algorithm for collecting this item 
presents additional questions conditional on responses (see Appendix D). There are seven 
stages (unaware, aware but unengaged, undecided, decided not to act, decided to act, 
action, and maintenance). This will help to understand screening behavior more robustly by 
understanding the stages of decision-making and adoption (i.e., uptake) of the behavior. 
Please note that screening uptake is considered stages 6 and 7 (action and maintenance). 
16 
primary care provider 
scheduled 
TOTAL TIME 
32 
minutes 
27 
minutes 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
The description of lung cancer screening with LDCT of the chest developed in our preliminary 
studies includes a picture and a written description of an LDCT. This description is embedded 
in the follow up surveys (Appendix C) prior to the self-reported question to ensure 
participants understand the question. Using the same successful procedure as in our prior 
pilot RCT for LungTalk,45 we will verify screening for individuals who self-report completing 
an LDCT of the chest to screen for lung cancer by mailing an authorization form to be signed 
and mailed back to the research office. Trained research staff will verify the screening LDCT 
scan using the information and signed authorization form by contacting the facility directly to 
request confirmation. 
 
7.​ Upcoming Primary Care Provider Visit will be measured with one item: Do you have an 
appointment already scheduled to follow-up with your primary care provider? If yes, when?  
 
In order to generate a robust semi-structured interview guide about the sustainability of a social 
media-based approach to increasing lung screening awareness and uptake, key stakeholder 
participants representing administrators (healthcare system and screening centers), key screening 
center personnel, advocacy organizations (i.e., LUNGevity, Dusty Joy Foundation), and national 
organizations (American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, GO2 Foundation for Lung 
Cancer) will be conducted. We will begin the Key Stakeholder participant recruitment no earlier than 
Year 3 of the study. These stakeholder participants will complete one semi-structured interview that 
will take 45-60 minutes to complete. We will amend the protocol to include the semi-structured 
interview guide that will be informed and created from the quantitative data collected from the 
participants. 
 
FB Analytics. Using the FB analytics component46 of our FBTA, our assessment plan will measure 
the total reach of the FBTA to increase awareness of the option to screen for lung cancer among 
screening-eligible individuals.47 Quantitative data collected from FB analytics during the 
recruitment campaign will assess reach by detailing: 1) reach; 2) link clicks; and 3) impressions.46 
Reach in FB analytics is defined as the number of people who saw the FBTA at least once.46 This 
can be further analyzed by hour, day, specific number of days, week, and campaign length. In 
addition, reach can be further stratified by specific location (i.e., state, city, town, county, zip 
code).46 Table 1 defines key Facebook analytics for this study. In addition, Facebook will provide 
the number of people who meet the target profile, within each location.  
 
Table 1. Key Facebook Analytics to Assess Reach 
Facebook 
Analytic 
Definition 
Reach 46 
Total # of people who saw the FBTA at least once. 
Link Clicks 46 
Total # of clicks on the link within the FBTA that led to the REDCap survey platform of the study. 
Impressions46 
Total # of times the FBTA was on screen (may include multiple views of the ad by the same 
person/people). 
 
5.6. Data management (data collection, source, and storage) 
17 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
Data collected for this study will be entered into and managed via a secure REDCap 
Database. REDCap, Research Electronic Data Capture, is an open-source platform that allows 
for the collection of research data in a secure manner over a web-based interface. Usage of 
the platform is contingent on an open-source license. The platform was developed by 
Vanderbilt University which HMH has a standing agreement with to allow the usage of 
REDCap for academic/research purposes. 
For this protocol, electronic REDCap data entry forms will be completed online by the 
participant. They will be auto sent survey invitations when their surveys are due. Participant 
responses will be recorded directly in REDCap. All connections to REDCap utilize encrypted 
(SSL-based) connections to ensure data is protected.  
User access to the data is contingent on those a part of the study team and data sharing 
agreements in place with third party entities, if applicable. Project managers are responsible 
for regularly auditing these permissions to ensure changes in staff are reflected 
appropriately. 
REDCap has the ability maintain an audit trail of changes to the database providing a 
timestamp as well as the user making the update. In addition, a data resolution module 
offers the ability of opening and closing queries optionally requiring justification when data is 
being updated. Permission roles for data resolution are integrated in REDCap. 
Comprehensive system logs are also maintained of user activity and when changes to the 
database are made. 
Final data sets for publication are required to be locked and stored centrally for potential 
future access requests from outside entities.  
Audio recorded data from the key stakeholder interviews will be stored on an CDI/HMH 
passphrase-protected server until transcribed. Audio recorded data from stakeholder 
participants will not include any identifying information and will be used to produce a 
de-identified verbatim transcript and erased after transcribed. 
 
5.7. Follow-up and end-of study (if applicable) n/a 
5.8. Statistical Method 
This behavioral intervention study will randomize 500 screening-eligible individuals in a 1:1 ratio into 
the LungTalk intervention or the non-tailored video intervention condition. We will use descriptive 
statistics such as means, standard deviations, and frequency distributions/distributional assumptions 
to examine data quality, identify patterns of missing and out-of-range values, and evaluate 
parametric assumptions. Remediation of normal distribution assumption violations will be 
accomplished using the Box-Cox procedure for transformations. We will apply the intention-to-treat 
(ITT) principle in handling missing data on screening uptake; a study participant will be coded as ‘no 
screening uptake’ unless otherwise verified by our participation sites.  We will examine violations of 
the missing-at-random assumption for secondary outcomes. If missingness is associated with any 
18 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
observed characteristics, then covariates associated with missingness will be incorporated into a 
sensitivity analysis to minimize bias.  
 
Aim 1. Examine the use of a social media platform (i.e., Facebook) to reach high-risk individuals 
eligible for lung screening. We will describe and compare the following measures and metrics using 
a mixture of data from FB analytics and study data from REDCap.  
Goal 
Analytic Plan 
Estimate the number and percentage of 
individuals aged 50 and older who currently or 
formerly smoke in the population that the 
advertisement is marketed. 
Numerator = # of Facebook members age 50+ 
who currently or formerly smoke in target 
markets​
Denominator = total # of Facebook members in 
target markets​
Both numerator and denominator provided by 
FB Analytics.  
Estimate the approximate percent of this 
population to which this advertisement is 
marketed are eligible for lung screening 
according to the USPSTF guidelines. 
Numerator = # of eligible participants, among 
those screened. 
Denominator = total number screened.  
Data from screening survey. 
Record the percent of eligible participants who 
agree to participate in the study. 
Numerator = total number consented​
Denominator = # of eligible participants  
Compare differences between those 
participating and those not participating on 
smoking status (i.e., current vs. former), age, 
gender, geography, and other key variables 
collected on the screening survey. 
Descriptive tables along with a series of 
independent samples t-tests and Chi-square 
tests.  
Record reasons that participants refuse to 
participate in the study. 
Descriptive analysis from screening survey 
data.  
Estimate attrition at 1 week and 6-month 
follow-up time periods. 
Numerator = # of baseline participants - # of 
participants who complete the follow-up 
assessment (either 1 week or 6 month)​
Denominator = # of baseline participants 
Completion at follow-up defined as completing, 
at the least, the screening/stage of adoption 
item.  
Compare differences between those completing 
and those not completing the study on 
sociodemographic and health status variables, 
geography, baseline scores on knowledge, lung 
cancer screening health beliefs, and stage of 
adoption for lung cancer screening. 
Descriptive tables along with a series of 
independent samples t-tests and Chi-square 
tests. Completion of the study is defined as 
completing the screening uptake item for the 
6-month assessment.  
Aim 2. Compare the effectiveness of a computer-tailored health communication and decision 
support tool (LungTalk) to a non-tailored Lung Screening Informational Video on lung screening: 1) 
19 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
knowledge; 2) health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy); 
3) occurrence of a patient-clinician discussion about lung screening; and 4) uptake and completion 
(primary outcome). Total knowledge scale scores and Lung Cancer Screening Health Beliefs (total 
scale scores for perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy) are continuous 
variables. Occurrence of patient-clinician discussion and screening uptake are dichotomous variables. 
Prior to group comparisons, measures will be described by timepoint, both overall and by group. 
Within-group changes will be assessed using standardized effect sizes. The primary outcome is 
screening uptake at 6-month follow-up. For between-group comparisons, generalized linear models 
will be used with adjustment for smoking status; appropriate link functions for each outcome will be 
determined based on distributions (e.g., for dichotomous outcome variables we will use a logit link). 
In the case of differential attrition, as noted above, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted such that 
regression models will also include baseline covariates that differ significantly between participants 
who do and do not complete follow-up assessments.  
Aim 3 (Qualitative). Explore the sustainability of a social media-based approach among key 
stakeholders to increase lung screening awareness, knowledge, adoption and uptake among 
screening-eligible individuals. (Note: Sustainability is defined as the extent an evidence-based 
intervention can deliver its intended benefits over an extended period of time within practice 
based upon the Dynamic Sustainability Framework.11). Audio recordings will be transcribed 
verbatim. Dr. Carter-Bawa will read and verify each transcript. Drs. Carter-Bawa and Ostroff will 
analyze the transcripts with the aid of QRS International’s NVivo10, a qualitative data analysis 
program, using conventional content analysis techniques. Each text unit (meaningful phrase, 
sentence, or story relevant to the study aims) will be extracted and coded with a short phrase 
reflecting its essence. Codes will be displayed on a case-by-variable matrix as described by Miles, 
Huberman, and Saldaña. Using data from the in-depth interviews, the research team will first 
categorize codes in each column and provide a description of each category. This will yield an 
in-depth description of factors that contribute to sustainability. All transcribed interviews will be 
validated for accuracy by Dr. Carter-Bawa. Because the initial coding of the data involves a low level 
of interpretation, a clinical research coordinator will code the data and place each code in the 
relevant cell of the data display table. Dr. Carter-Bawa will verify the coding. Coding will be further 
verified by the investigators during a data analytic team meeting. Disagreements about code labels 
or placement will be resolved by a reevaluation of transcript data and team discussion until 
consensus is reached. The categorization of the data in each column, which involves a higher degree 
of interpretation, will be done by team discussion to reach consensus. Because the findings will be 
produced in an evolving and iterative process, inter-coder reliability indices are not feasible; 
however, a detailed and systematic plan to ensure negotiated consensual validity at each stage of 
analysis will ensure credibility of the findings, and a detailed audit trail will be maintained that 
chronicles all analytic decisions. All digital recordings will be saved on a passphrase protected HMH 
server and deleted 7 days after verification of the transcript for accuracy. Only the PI and Research 
Project Associate will have access to the digital recordings.  
20 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
 
5.8.1. Sample size calculation and justification 
With a sample size of n=250 per group and up to 20% missing assessment data (n=200 
available for analysis) on total knowledge scale and total perceived risk scale scores 
(secondary outcomes), we will have an 80% statistical power if the difference is d=0.28 (in 
standardized effect size units, or Cohen d), in an independent-sample t-test with a two-sided 
type-I error rate of 5%.  A 0.25 effect is what Cohen considered a ‘small’ effect size in 
psychology research, thus a conservative estimate of the statistical evidence that can be 
supported in our study design. 
5.8.2. Statistical Analysis Plan 
With a sample size of n=250 per intervention group, and using an ITT analysis (default is no 
screening uptake unless otherwise verified, thus no “missing” outcome data), we will be able 
to detect a difference between the LungTalk and non-tailored educational video groups with 
an 80% statistical power if the difference in lung screening uptake at 6-month follow-up 
(primary outcome) is 25% in the LungTalk group compared to 15% in the non-tailored 
educational video groups, in a test of independent proportions and a two-sided type-I error 
rate of 5%. This 25% vs. 15% comparison is a conservative estimate, as 31% vs. 10% 
difference was observed in preliminary data testing LungTalk in a sample of 
community-based screening-eligible individuals in Indiana in 2018 using the same ITT 
procedure.16 
  
6 - Trial Administration 
6.1. Ethical Considerations - Institutional Review Board (IRB) Review 
The study will be conducted according to the International Conference on Harmonization 
(ICH), Good Clinical Practice (GCP), the Declaration of Helsinki, Institutional Review Boards 
(IRB) and in accordance with the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations on Protection of Human 
Rights (21 CFR 50).  
 
6.2. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Review (list the IRB of record) 
​
Hackensack Meridian Health 
6.3. Confidentiality 
HMH may allow the use and disclosure of protected health information pursuant to a 
completed and signed Research Authorization form. The use and disclosure of protected 
health information will be limited to the individuals/entities described in the Research 
Authorization form. A Research Authorization form must be approved by the IRB. 
The consent indicates that individualized, de-identified information collected for the 
purposes of this study may be shared with other qualified researchers. Only researchers who 
have received approval from HMH will be allowed to access this information, which will not 
include protected health information such as the participant’s name, except for dates. 
 
21 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
6.4. Informed consent  
All participants (N=500) (except stakeholders) will sign an e-consent in REDCap. 
The consent form/research authorization meets the requirements of the Code of Federal 
Regulations and the Institutional Review Board/Privacy Board of HMH. The consent form will 
include the following: 
1.​ The nature, objectives, potential risks, and benefits of the intended study.  
2.​ The length of study, what it entails, and the likely follow-up required. 
3.​ Alternatives to the proposed study. 
4.​ The name of the investigator(s) responsible for the protocol. 
5.​ The right of the participant to accept or refuse study 
interventions/interactions and to withdraw from participation at any time.  
6.​ How the participants’ data will be protected, who will have access to their 
PHI, and what data will be disclosed for research purposes. 
Prior to inclusion in the study and before protocol-specified procedures are carried out, 
potential participants will be able to read the full details of the protocol as outlined in the 
consent and research authorization. Participants will have the ability to contact the 
investigator if there are any questions prior to consenting electronically. Participants will also 
be informed that they are free to withdraw from the study at any time.  
All participants must electronically sign an IRB-approved consent form via REDCap indicating 
their consent to participate. A consenting professional signature is not required as noted in 
IRB SOP IC-706. The participant will be offered to receive a copy of the signed informed 
consent form either by email or by mail. 
Key stakeholder participants (N=20) will be consented over the phone using a verbal 
consent. 
The verbal informed consent/research authorization meets the requirements of the Code of 
Federal Regulations and the Institutional Review Board/Privacy Board of HMH. The 
consent/research authorization script will include the following:  
1.​ The nature, objectives, potential risks, and benefits of the intended study.  
2.​ The length of study, what it entails, and the likely follow-up required. 
3.​ Alternatives to the proposed study. 
4.​ The name of the investigator(s) responsible for the protocol. 
5.​ The right of the participant to accept or refuse study 
interventions/interactions and to withdraw from participation at any time.  
6.​ How the participants’ data will be protected, who will have access to their 
PHI, and what data will be disclosed for research purposes. 
Prior to inclusion in the study and before protocol-specified procedures are carried out, 
consenting professionals will explain the details of the protocol to participants. Participants 
22 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
will also be informed that they are free to withdraw from the study at any time. The consent 
discussion will occur remotely via teleconference, telephone, or videoconference.  
 
6.5. Data Quality Assurance (if applicable) 
Online processes and platform (REDCap) will be monitored daily by the study team/project 
manager to assess intervention delivery issues and any unusual events. Modifications will be 
made as necessary and recorded to ensure appropriate intervention delivery and 
maintenance of protocol integrity. In addition, any problems identified will be discussed at 
team meetings and corrected. 
 
6.6. Study Records (retention etc.) 
Final data sets for publication are required to be locked and stored centrally for potential 
future access requests from outside entities.  
Audio recorded data from the key stakeholder interviews will be stored on an CDI/HMH 
passphrase-protected server until transcribed. Audio recorded data from stakeholder 
participants will not include any identifying information and will be used to produce a 
de-identified verbatim transcript and erased after transcribed. 
6.7. Compensation for Research-Related Injury (if applicable) 
n/a 
6.8. Economic Burden to Subjects (if applicable) 
n/a 
6.9. Credentials, Training 
​
All research personnel will be up-to-date with required CITI training. 
6.10. Financing and Insurance (if applicable) 
n/a 
6.11. Publication Plan (if applicable) 
n/a 
 
7- Resources Available 
7.1. Describe the resources available to conduct the research:  
The Cancer Prevention Precision Control Institute is led by the applicant. The primary office 
space for senior investigators, fellows, data managers and research support staff consists of 
10,000 sq feet. Access to the research office, which houses study data, is limited to study 
23 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
personnel and is kept locked at all times. The space is well equipped with individual offices, 
cubicles, and several multipurpose rooms for conducting interviews and convening research 
team meetings, journal clubs, and didactic seminars. Faculty all have office space, computer 
workstations, locked filing cabinets, and onsite access to videoconference facilities.  
 
Computer The PI and research team have designated computer workstations that are 
networked to the various secure campus-wide hospital systems. CDI has a well-maintained 
computing environment that includes frequent software updates, proper hardware 
maintenance schedules, and 24/7/365 help desk and network administration support. CDI 
has an institutional site license for many software programs including Microsoft Office Suite, 
Adobe Acrobat, SAS, and SPSS. The computers are also equipped with the statistical program 
R, and bibliographic manager software (EndNote). The CDI has its own web and database 
servers based on Microsoft platform to streamline data collection and maintain data 
integrities. The department also has full-time in-house software developers and project 
managers to build and manage all the research IT related activities. 
 
Administrative Support: The CDI and HMH provide full supportive services for all research 
projects including a full time Sponsored Programs Manager to help investigators comply with 
all relevant regulations and policies and managing grants. A financial analyst supports 
financial needs in sponsored research, cost analysis, procurement, and budgeting. The 
Research Department also has comprehensive administrative support for all researchers. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
1.​ Final recommendation statement: Lung cancer screening. U. S. Preventive Services Task 
Force. Updated March 9, 2021. Accessed May 26, 2021, 2021. 
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/RecommendationStateme
ntFinal/lung-cancer-screening 
2.​ United States Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Lung cancer 
screening. Updated Updated December 2016. Accessed May 21, 2020. 
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatement
Final/lung-cancer-screening 
3.​ National Lung Screening Trial Research T, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer 
mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. Aug 4 
2011;365(5):395-409. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 
4.​ De Koning H. ES 02.01 The Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON). Journal of 
Thoracic Oncology. 2017;12(11):S1611. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2017.09.108 
5.​ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Decision memo for screening for lung cancer with 
low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N). Accessed May 21, 2020. 
https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId
=274 
24 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
6.​ Okereke IC, Nishi S, Zhou J, Goodwin JS. Trends in lung cancer screening in the United States, 
2016-2017. J Thorac Dis. Mar 2019;11(3):873-881. doi:10.21037/jtd.2019.01.105 
7.​ Carter-Harris L, Ceppa DP, Hanna N, Rawl SM. Lung cancer screening: what do long-term 
smokers know and believe? Health Expect. Feb 2017;20(1):59-68. doi:10.1111/hex.12433 
8.​ Carter-Harris L, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ, Roth J.A, Buist DSM. A qualitative study exploring why 
individuals opt out of lung cancer screening. Fam Pract. Apr 1 2017;34(2):239-244. 
doi:10.1093/fampra/cmw146 
9.​ Carter-Harris L, Slaven JE, Jr., Monahan PO, Shedd-Steele R, Hanna N, Rawl SM. 
Understanding lung cancer screening behavior: Racial, gender, and geographic differences 
among Indiana long-term smokers. Prev Med Rep. Jun 2018;10:49-54. 
doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.01.018 
10.​Carter-Harris L, Comer RS, Goyal A, et al. Development and Usability Testing of a 
Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol. JMIR 
Res Protoc. Nov 16 2017;6(11):e225. doi:10.2196/resprot.8694 
11.​Chambers DA GR, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox 
of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science. 2013;8(117):1-11.  
12.​United States Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Lung cancer 
screening. Accessed October 10. 
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatement
Final/lung-cancer-screening 
13.​United States Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: lung cancer: 
Screening July 7, 2020. Accessed October 10. 
https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/lung-cancer-screeni
ng-2020 
14.​Carter-Harris L, Comer RS, Goyal A, Vode E, Rawl SM. Testing of a computer-tailored decision 
support tool for lung cancer screening: Results of a community-based, web-based pilot 
randomized controlled trial. 2020 (in press). 
15.​Carter-Harris L, Tan AS, Salloum RG, Young-Wolff KC. Patient-provider discussions about lung 
cancer screening pre- and post-guidelines: Health Information National Trends Survey 
(HINTS). Patient Educ Couns. Nov 2016;99(11):1772-1777. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.014 
16.​Carter-Harris L, Slaven JE, 2nd, Monohan P, Rawl SM. Development and Psychometric 
Evaluation of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales. Cancer Nurs. May/Jun 
2017;40(3):237-244. doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000000386 
17.​Carter-Harris L, Slaven JE, 2nd, Monahan PO, Draucker CB, Vode E, Rawl SM. Understanding 
lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis. J Med Screen. Jun 2020;27(2):105-112. 
doi:10.1177/0969141319876961 
18.​Carter-Harris L, Bartlett Ellis R, Warrick A, Rawl S. Beyond Traditional Newspaper 
Advertisement: Leveraging Facebook-Targeted Advertisement to Recruit Long-Term Smokers 
for Research. J Med Internet Res. Jun 15 2016;18(6):e117. doi:10.2196/jmir.5502 
19.​Facebook Distribution of Users by Age Group in the U.S. Facebook. Accessed May 26, 2021, 
2021. 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187549/facebook-distribution-of-users-age-group-usa/ 
20.​Frandsen M, Walters J, Ferguson SG. Exploring the viability of using online social media 
advertising as a recruitment method for smoking cessation clinical trials. Nicotine Tob Res. 
Feb 2014;16(2):247-51. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt157 
21.​Ramo DE, Prochaska JJ. Broad reach and targeted recruitment using Facebook for an online 
survey of young adult substance use. J Med Internet Res. Feb 23 2012;14(1):e28. 
doi:10.2196/jmir.1878 
25 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
22.​Ramo DE, Hall SM, Prochaska JJ. Reaching young adult smokers through the internet: 
comparison of three recruitment mechanisms. Nicotine Tob Res. Jul 2010;12(7):768-75. 
doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq086 
23.​Ramo DE, Delucchi KL, Liu H, Hall SM, Prochaska JJ. Young adults who smoke cigarettes and 
marijuana: analysis of thoughts and behaviors. Addict Behav. Jan 2014;39(1):77-84. 
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.08.035 
24.​Smith A, Anderson M. Social media use in 2018. Pew Internet.org. Updated October 9. 
https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/ 
25.​United States Adults Social Platform Use. Social networking platforms’ demographics update 
2019. Marketingcharts.com,. Accessed October 9, 
https://www.marketingcharts.com/charts/us-adults-social-platform-use-demographic-group
-2019/attachment/pew-social-platform-use-by-demographic-apr2019 
26.​Albada A, Ausems MG, Bensing JM, van Dulmen S. Tailored information about cancer risk and 
screening: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. Nov 2009;77(2):155-71. 
doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.005 
27.​Krebs P, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS. A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health 
behavior change. Prev Med. Sep-Oct 2010;51(3-4):214-21. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.06.004 
28.​Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print 
health behavior change interventions. Psychological bulletin. Jul 2007;133(4):673-93. 
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673 
29.​Kreuter M, Farrell D, Olevitch L, Brennan L. Tailoring health messages: Customizing 
communication with computer technology. Tailoring health messages: Customizing 
communication with computer technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 
2000:xiii, 270-xiii, 270. 
30.​Rawl SM, Skinner CS, Perkins SM, et al. Computer-delivered tailored intervention improves 
colon cancer screening knowledge and health beliefs of African-Americans. Health Educ Res. 
Oct 2012;27(5):868-85. doi:10.1093/her/cys094 
31.​Ruffin MTt, Fetters MD, Jimbo M. Preference-based electronic decision aid to promote 
colorectal cancer screening: results of a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. Oct 
2007;45(4):267-73. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.003 
32.​Wu TY, Lin C. Developing and evaluating an individually tailored intervention to increase 
mammography adherence among Chinese American women. Cancer Nurs. Jan-Feb 
2015;38(1):40-9. doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000000126 
33.​Ahmad F, Cameron JI, Stewart DE. A tailored intervention to promote breast cancer screening 
among South Asian immigrant women. Social science & medicine (1982). Feb 
2005;60(3):575-86. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.05.018 
34.​Champion V, Foster JL, Menon U. Tailoring interventions for health behavior change in breast 
cancer screening. Cancer Pract. Sep-Oct 1997;5(5):283-8.  
35.​Lau YK, Caverly TJ, Cherng ST, et al. Development and validation of a personalized, web-based 
decision aid for lung cancer screening using mixed methods: a study protocol. JMIR Res 
Protoc. Dec 19 2014;3(4):e78. doi:10.2196/resprot.4039 
36.​Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Lung 
cancer screening decision tool. Accessibility verified February 12, 2016. Accessed October 7, 
2020. http://nomograms.mskcc.org/Lung/Screening.aspx 
37.​Chen Y, Marcus MW, Niaz A, Duffy SW, Field JK. My Lung Risk: a user-friendly, web-based 
calculator for risk assessment of lung cancer based on the validated Liverpool Lung Project 
risk prediction model. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education. 2014/05/04 
2014;52(3):144-152. doi:10.1080/14635240.2014.888814 
26 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
38.​Volk RJ, Linder SK, Leal VB, et al. Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer 
screening with low-dose computed tomography. Prev Med. May 2014;62:60-3. 
doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.006 
39.​Veterans Health Administration. Veterans Health Administration, Screening for lung cancer 
pamphlet. Accessibility verified February 12, 2016. Accessed September 29,. 
http://www.prevention.va.gov/docs/LungCancerScreeningHandout.pdf. 
40.​Dharod A, Bellinger C, Foley K, Case LD, Miller D. The Reach and Feasibility of an Interactive 
Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Delivered by Patient Portal. Appl Clin Inform. Jan 
2019;10(1):19-27. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1676807 
41.​Carter-Harris L, Davis LL, Rawl SM. Lung Cancer Screening Participation: Developing a 
Conceptual Model to Guide Research. Res Theory Nurs Pract. Nov 1 2016;30(4):333-352. 
doi:10.1891/1541-6577.30.4.333 
42.​McDonnell KK, Strayer SM, Sercy E, et al. Developing and testing a brief clinic-based lung 
cancer screening decision aid for primary care settings. Health expectations : an international 
journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2018;21(4):796-804. 
doi:10.1111/hex.12675 
43.​American Cancer Society. Cancer Screening Tests Videos. Accessed October 9. 
https://www.cancer.org/healthy/find-cancer-early/cancer-screening-tests-videos.html 
44.​American Cancer Society. Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines. Accessed October 9. 
https://www.cancer.org/health-care-professionals/american-cancer-society-prevention-early
-detection-guidelines/lung-cancer-screening-guidelines.html 
45.​Carter-Harris L, Comer RS, Goyal A, et al. Development and Usability Testing of a 
Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol. JMIR 
Res Protoc. Nov 16 2017;6(11):e225. doi:10.2196/resprot.8694 
46.​FACEBOOK for developers. Facebook Analytics Accessed October 9, 2020. 
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/analytics/ 
47.​Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion 
interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322-1327. 
doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322 
48.​Russomanno J, Patterson JG, Jabson Tree JM. Social Media Recruitment of Marginalized, 
Hard-to-Reach Populations: Development of Recruitment and Monitoring Guidelines. JMIR 
Public Health Surveill. Dec 2 2019;5(4):e14886. doi:10.2196/14886 
49.​GO2 Foundation. Screening Centers of Excellence citation. Accessed October 9, 2020, 
(https://go2foundation.org/risk-early-detection/screening-centers/) 
50.​Raudenbush Stephen W, Bryk Anthony S, eds. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and 
Data Analysis Methods. 2 ed. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2002. 
51.​Graham JW, Hofer SM, Donaldson SI, MacKinnon DP, Schafer JL. Analysis with missing data in 
prevention research. In: Bryant K, Windle M, West S, eds. The science of prevention:  
methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. American 
Psychological Association; 1997:325-366. 
52.​Schafer JL, Olsen MK. Multiple Imputation for Multivariate Missing-Data Problems: A Data 
Analyst's Perspective. Multivariate Behav Res. Oct 1 1998;33(4):545-71. 
doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3304_5 
53.​Hedeker D, Gibbons RD. Application of random-effects pattern-mixture models for missing 
data in longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods. 1997;2(1):64-78. 
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.1.64 
54.​Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. On the Adaptive Control of the False Discovery Rate in Multiple 
Testing With Independent Statistics. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 
2000;25(1):60-83. doi:10.3102/10769986025001060 
27 

 
Study Number: Pro2022-0860 
04.20.2023
 
55.​Arigo D, Pagoto S, Carter-Harris L, Lillie SE, Nebeker C. Using social media for health research: 
Methodological and ethical considerations for recruitment and intervention delivery. Digit 
Health. Jan-Dec 2018;4:2055207618771757. doi:10.1177/2055207618771757 
28