BMJ open respiratory research · 2026
Participant views of case finding for COPD after lung cancer screening: the C FIND COPD study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Phillips Olivia R, McKeever Tricia M, Porte Joanne, Almeida Paula C A, O'Dowd Emma L, Murray Rachael L, Bolton Charlotte E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Early and accurate diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is essential to ensure correct management and minimise future morbidity. Therefore, case finding in symptomatic at-risk individuals is highly valuable. The C FIND COPD study invited symptomatic people at risk of COPD for a COPD case-finding diagnostic assessment. These individuals had undergone a previous lung cancer screening low-dose CT. The diagnostic assessment used a mobile research unit stationed in community car parks across Nottinghamshire. This current qualitative study aimed to gather participants' opinions about this research study and the associated lung assessment.
METHODS: 15 participants accepted an interview using a semi-structured interview guide by an independent researcher. At the visit, seven interviewees had been given a new diagnosis of COPD and eight had no current evidence of the condition. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed in NVivo (V.14) using inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Across five themes, highlights included praise for the clinical research staff, the accessibility and atmosphere of the research unit, convenience of appointment and opportunity of case finding. Subsequent suboptimal communication with general practitioner surgeries was flagged as a key issue in the weeks following the assessment.
CONCLUSION: Overall, case finding of COPD after lung cancer screening as part of the C FIND COPD study was considered a valuable assessment and experience. Interviewees were grateful for the service and aside from some practical aspects, people supported a wider roll-out.
METHODS: 15 participants accepted an interview using a semi-structured interview guide by an independent researcher. At the visit, seven interviewees had been given a new diagnosis of COPD and eight had no current evidence of the condition. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed in NVivo (V.14) using inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Across five themes, highlights included praise for the clinical research staff, the accessibility and atmosphere of the research unit, convenience of appointment and opportunity of case finding. Subsequent suboptimal communication with general practitioner surgeries was flagged as a key issue in the weeks following the assessment.
CONCLUSION: Overall, case finding of COPD after lung cancer screening as part of the C FIND COPD study was considered a valuable assessment and experience. Interviewees were grateful for the service and aside from some practical aspects, people supported a wider roll-out.