Table 2 Eligibility criteria for key question 2 on the relative importance people place on the potential benefits and harms from screening for lung cancer

Population

Adults aged 18 years and older

Expert or healthcare providers (doctor, nurse) acting as proxies for patients and the public

Specific populations of interest may include the following:

• Age

• Sex

• Smoking history

• Race or ethnicity (e.g., First Nations, Inuit, and Métis)

• Populations for which screening access and outcomes may be inequitable (e.g., LGBTQ + , low socioeconomic status, homeless)

• For health-state utility studies: cancer detection via screening vs. clinical presentation; stage/severity of cancer (i.e., curative vs. palliative/non-metastatic vs. metastatic)

Exposures

a) Direct measurements:

Utility-based measurements (e.g., health state utilities, trade-offs between outcomes)

i. Experience with outcome/health state (as per KQ1, adding different stages/severities of cancer)

ii. Exposure to clinical scenarios about the outcome(s)

iii. Exposure to choice sets or other risk exercises (e.g., trade-offs, balance sheet, ranking) with differing risks/magnitudes of effects on benefits versus harms from screening (must contain 1 + benefit and 1 + harm)

Quantitative non-utility studies (e.g., simple ratings, rankings, or trade-offs between 1 + benefit and 1 + harm)

i. Any exposure

b) Indirect measurements (allowing inferences about how many people perceive benefits as more important than harms & acceptability of screening; not only in the context of critical outcomes):

i. Exposure to estimates of effect from screening for 1 + benefit and 1 + harm (e.g., decision aids)

Comparisons

a) Utility-based measurements:

Studies measuring utilities during cancer treatments that are not considered a standard first-line of care for a representative sample, by stage of cancer (will gather clinical input as needed)

i. Healthy/usual state without outcome (may include screen-negative patients)

ii. Different outcome/health state (e.g., false positives vs. overdiagnosis; includes studies comparing different stages/severity of cancers)

iii. No comparison, if no other studies for the outcome comparison

b) Quantitative non-utility studies and indirect studies

i. No comparison

ii. Comparison with another screening strategy (e.g., having different magnitude of effects; based on comparisons evaluated in evidence found for KQ1)

Outcomes

a) Direct measurements:

i. Health-state utility values; health states may include different stages/severities of lung cancer and nodules to help estimate the utility of an overdiagnosed case

ii. Other utility scores (e.g., trade-offs, magnitude of coefficients/utility weights in models for each outcome)

iii. Non-utility, quantitative information about the relative importance of different benefits and harms (ratings, rankings)

b) Indirect measurements:

i. Inferences about how many people perceive benefits as greater than harms

ii. Preference for or against screening (screening attendance, intentions, or acceptance) or preferred screening strategy based on different outcome risk descriptions (e.g. using decision aids)

c) Measures of variability for all of the above (e.g., 95% CIs, proportion unwilling to trade any benefit for harm, proportion undecided from decision aids vs. those confident in decision for vs. against)

Timing

Measured immediately after experiencing outcome/diagnosis (to 3 months) and longer-term (e.g., after investigations and treatment)

Setting

Any setting in Very High Human Development Index countries [59]

Study design and publication status

Any quantitative study design

Editorials

Journal articles

Letters, abstracts, and grey literature (e.g., government reports, results in trial registries) if information on study design (e.g., eligibility criteria, participant characteristics, presentation of scenarios) is sufficient to assess study and results are confirmed as final (accessible online or via author contact)

Language

English or French

Publication date

2012–present