Manchester’s ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot utilised mobile CT scanners in convenient retail locations to deliver lung cancer screening to socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. We assessed whether screening location was an important factor for those attending the service. Location was important for 74.7% (n=701/938) and 23% (n=216/938) reported being less likely to attend an equivalent hospital-based programme. This preference was most common in current smokers (27% current smokers vs 19% former smokers; AdjOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08, p=0.036) and those in the lowest deprivation quartile (25% lowest quartile vs 17.6% highest quartile; AdjOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.24, p=0.005). Practical issues related to travel were most important in those less willing to attend a hospital-based service, with 83.3% citing at least one travel related barrier to non-attendance. A convenient community-based screening programme may reduce inequalities in screening adherence especially in those at high risk of lung cancer in deprived areas.
- Lung Cancer
- Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors JT, PVB, RB and PAJC contributed to the service concept. PVB, JT, DC, PE, ST, RB and PAJC contributed to the service development by members of the Macmillan Cancer Improvement Partnership. HB, ME, AS, RB and PAC contributed to the service operation and delivery by the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust lung cancer team. HB, ME, MK, JN, KS, SW, RB and PAJC contributed to the study coordination and administration by the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Thoracic Oncology Research Hub (TORCH). HB and PAJC contributed to the analysis of data and drafting of the manuscript. HB, RB and PAJC are the guarantors of overall content. All authors contributed to the review, revision and agreement of final manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval The study was granted ethical approval by the North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (REC: 17/EE/0092) and all participants provided fully informed written consent.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.