Lung CancerNCT05824273

The INSPIRE-Lung Study

A study testing LungTalk and Non-tailored intervention - Standard of practice in people with Lung Cancer, run by Hackensack Meridian Health at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record

Search all trials

Trial summary

LungTalk and leveraging Facebook-targeted Advertisement (FBTA) addresses the call to develop and test multi-level, cancer communication interventions using innovative methods and designs. The study's long term goal is to increase lung cancer screening uptake among appropriate, high-risk individuals nationwide. Read more about this study

Who is it for?: Ages 50 to 80 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for: Lung Cancer
What is being tested?: LungTalk and Non-tailored intervention - Standard of practice
Type of treatment: Lifestyle or therapy programme
Could I receive a placebo?: No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people: 512 participants
Where: 1 siteUnited States
Study dates: 2 Aug 2023to 30 Jul 2024
Phase: Interventional
Are there results?: Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

Ages 50 to 80 years
All sexes
Healthy volunteers accepted
Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

≥20-pack-year smoking history;
Individuals who currently smoke or quit smoking within the past 15 years

Who cannot join

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)

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site

Hackensack Meridian Health - Center for Discovery and Innovation
Nutley, New Jersey, 07110

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Leveraging Social Media to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Awareness, Knowledge and Uptake in High-Risk Populations

Conditions: Lung Cancer
Being tested: LungTalk, Non-tailored intervention - Standard of practice
Keywords: Lung cancer screening, Social media, Tailored interventions
Medical subject headings: Lung Neoplasms

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

LungTalkBehavioural
LungTalk is a 10-15 minute long computer-tailored health communication and decision-making tool.
Non-tailored intervention - Standard of practiceBehavioural
ACS Lung Screening Informational Video

Study groups in NCT05824273
Study group	Role	What they receive
Tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk)	Experimental	Participants will receive the tailored health intervention "LungTalk". LungTalk 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. Receives: Behavioral: LungTalk
Non-tailored Intervention	Active comparator	Participants will receive non-tailored American Cancer Society (ACS) Lung Screening Informational Video as per standard of care. ACS Lung Screening Informational Video (ACS LSIV) is a non-tailored 5-minute video from the American Cancer Society about lung cancer screening designed for the lay individual. Receives: Behavioral: Non-tailored intervention - Standard of practice

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Reach
Leveraging a well-established, social media-based platform (Facebook) to target screening-eligible individuals in the community. This will be measured by the total number of people who saw the FBTA at least once.
Measured: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook
Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Link Clicks
Leveraging a well-established, social media-based platform (Facebook) to target screening-eligible individuals in the community. This will be measured by the total number of clicks on the link within the FBTA that led to the REDCap survey platform of the study.
Measured: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook
Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Impressions
Leveraging a well-established, social media-based platform (Facebook) to target screening-eligible individuals in the community. This will be measured by the total number of times the FBTA was on screen (may include multiple views of the ad by the same person/people).
Measured: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Knowledge Assessment
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve total knowledge about lung screening. The total Knowledge of Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a 9-item multidimensional scale ranging from 0 to 9 with 0 being "No Knowledge" and 9 being "Complete knowledge".
Measured: At baseline
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Knowledge Assessment
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve total knowledge about lung screening. The total Knowledge of Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a 9-item multidimensional scale ranging from 0 to 9 with 0 being "No Knowledge" and 9 being "Complete knowledge".
Measured: At one week from baseline survey completion
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Risk
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Risk. 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).
Measured: At baseline
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Risk
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Risk. 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).
Measured: At one week from baseline survey completion
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Benefits
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Benefits. 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).
Measured: At baseline
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Benefits
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Benefits. 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).
Measured: At one week from baseline survey completion
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Barriers
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Barriers. 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).
Measured: At baseline
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Barriers
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Barriers. 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).
Measured: At one week from baseline survey completion
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Self-Efficacy
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy for Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed using a scale with nine items with a four-point Likert response option to assess individual beliefs about ability to arrange and complete a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for lung cancer. The range of scores is 9 to 36 (higher levels of self-efficacy).
Measured: At baseline
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Self-Efficacy
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy for Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed using a scale with nine items with a four-point Likert response option to assess individual beliefs about ability to arrange and complete a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for lung cancer. The range of scores is 9 to 36 (higher levels of self-efficacy).
Measured: At one week from baseline survey completion
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion. Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a single item requiring dichotomous (Y/N) response regarding a discussion with their healthcare provider.
Measured: At baseline
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion. Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a single item requiring dichotomous (Y/N) response regarding a discussion with their healthcare provider.
Measured: At one week from baseline survey completion
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion. Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a single item requiring dichotomous (Y/N) response regarding a discussion with their healthcare provider.
Measured: At 6 months from baseline survey completion
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Screening Uptake
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Screening Uptake, Lung Cancer Screening Uptake will be assessed via self-report via the stages of adoption algorithm for lung screening. There are seven stages (unaware, aware but unengaged, undecided, decided not to act, decided to act, action, and maintenance).
Measured: At baseline
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Screening Uptake
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Screening Uptake, Lung Cancer Screening Uptake will be assessed via self-report via the stages of adoption algorithm for lung screening. There are seven stages (unaware, aware but unengaged, undecided, decided not to act, decided to act, action, and maintenance).
Measured: At one week from baseline survey completion
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Screening Uptake
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Screening Uptake, Lung Cancer Screening Uptake will be assessed via self-report via the stages of adoption algorithm for lung screening. There are seven stages (unaware, aware but unengaged, undecided, decided not to act, decided to act, action, and maintenance).
Measured: At 6 months from baseline survey completion

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

2 Aug 202330 Jul 2024

First posted21 Apr 2023
Study start2 Aug 2023
Primary completion30 Jul 2024
Study completion30 Jul 2024

Resources

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
Publications (56)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
Other trials for Lung CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design

Study type: Interventional
Phase: Phase N/A
Primary purpose: Screening
Allocation: Randomised
Intervention model: Parallel groups
Masking: None (open label)
Enrolment: 512 participants (actual)

IDs, dates and publications

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05824273
Sponsor's protocol ID: Pro2022-0860
Other IDs: 7R01CA263662-02
Status last verified: Nov 2025
First submitted: 10 Apr 2023
Last updated: 21 Nov 2025
Results posted: Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
Data monitoring committee: No
FDA-regulated drug: No
FDA-regulated device: No
Individual data sharing: No

Publications

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/RecommendationStatementFinal/lung-cancer-screening
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/RecommendationStatementFinal/lung-cancer-screening
National Lung Screening Trial Research Team; Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. Epub 2011 Jun 29.
PubMed 21714641
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
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
Okereke IC, Nishi S, Zhou J, Goodwin JS. Trends in lung cancer screening in the United States, 2016-2017. J Thorac Dis. 2019 Mar;11(3):873-881. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.01.105.
PubMed 31019776
Carter-Harris L, Ceppa DP, Hanna N, Rawl SM. Lung cancer screening: what do long-term smokers know and believe? Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):59-68. doi: 10.1111/hex.12433. Epub 2015 Dec 23.
PubMed 26701339
Carter-Harris L, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ, Roth JA, Buist DSM. A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening. Fam Pract. 2017 Apr 1;34(2):239-244. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw146.
PubMed 28122849
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. 2018 Feb 3;10:49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.01.018. eCollection 2018 Jun.
PubMed 29552458
Carter-Harris L, Comer RS, Goyal A, Vode EC, Hanna N, Ceppa D, Rawl SM. Development and Usability Testing of a Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Nov 16;6(11):e225. doi: 10.2196/resprot.8694.
PubMed 29146565
Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013 Oct 2;8:117. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.
PubMed 24088228
United States Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Lung cancer screening. Accessed October 10. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/lung-cancer-screening
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-screening-2020
Carter-Harris L, Comer RS, Slaven Ii JE, Monahan PO, Vode E, Hanna NH, Ceppa DP, Rawl SM. Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Community-Based Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 3;22(11):e17050. doi: 10.2196/17050.
PubMed 33141096
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. 2016 Nov;99(11):1772-1777. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.014. Epub 2016 May 17.
PubMed 27241830

Study at a glance

From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Nov 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.

Official title: Leveraging Social Media to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Awareness, Knowledge and Uptake in High-Risk Populations
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05824273
Acronym / sponsor ID: Pro2022-0860
Conditions: Lung Cancer
Keywords: Lung cancer screening, Social media, Tailored interventions
Study type: Interventional
Recruitment status: Completed
Enrolment: 512 participants (actual)
Lead sponsor: Hackensack Meridian HealthUniversity, hospital or other
Collaborators: National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Study start: 2 Aug 2023 (actual)
Primary completion: 30 Jul 2024 (actual)
Study completion: 30 Jul 2024 (actual)
First posted: 21 Apr 2023 (actual)
Results: Posted 21 Nov 2025

Clinical summary

The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.

Study design

Primary purpose: Screening
Allocation: Randomised
Intervention model: Parallel groups
Masking: None (open label)
Number of arms: 2

Arm	Type	Receives
Tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk)	Experimental	Behavioral: LungTalkParticipants will receive the tailored health intervention "LungTalk". LungTalk 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.
Non-tailored Intervention	Active comparator	Behavioral: Non-tailored intervention - Standard of practiceParticipants will receive non-tailored American Cancer Society (ACS) Lung Screening Informational Video as per standard of care. ACS Lung Screening Informational Video (ACS LSIV) is a non-tailored 5-minute video from the American Cancer Society about lung cancer screening designed for the lay individual.

Who may qualify

Ages: 50 to 80 years
Sex: All
Healthy volunteers: Accepted
Age groups: Adult, Older adult

Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)

≥20-pack-year smoking history;
Individuals who currently smoke or quit smoking within the past 15 years

Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)

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)

Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Interventions

Intervention	Type	Arms
LungTalkLungTalk is a 10-15 minute long computer-tailored health communication and decision-making tool.	Behavioural	Tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk)
Non-tailored intervention - Standard of practiceACS Lung Screening Informational Video	Behavioural	Non-tailored Intervention

Primary outcome

Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Reach
Time frame: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook
Leveraging a well-established, social media-based platform (Facebook) to target screening-eligible individuals in the community. This will be measured by the total number of people who saw the FBTA at least once.
Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Link Clicks
Time frame: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook
Leveraging a well-established, social media-based platform (Facebook) to target screening-eligible individuals in the community. This will be measured by the total number of clicks on the link within the FBTA that led to the REDCap survey platform of the study.
Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Impressions
Time frame: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook
Leveraging a well-established, social media-based platform (Facebook) to target screening-eligible individuals in the community. This will be measured by the total number of times the FBTA was on screen (may include multiple views of the ad by the same person/people).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Knowledge Assessment
Time frame: At baseline
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve total knowledge about lung screening. The total Knowledge of Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a 9-item multidimensional scale ranging from 0 to 9 with 0 being "No Knowledge" and 9 being "Complete knowledge".
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Knowledge Assessment
Time frame: At one week from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve total knowledge about lung screening. The total Knowledge of Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a 9-item multidimensional scale ranging from 0 to 9 with 0 being "No Knowledge" and 9 being "Complete knowledge".
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Risk
Time frame: At baseline
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Risk. 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).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Risk
Time frame: At one week from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Risk. 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).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Benefits
Time frame: At baseline
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Benefits. 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).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Benefits
Time frame: At one week from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Benefits. 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).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Barriers
Time frame: At baseline
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Barriers. 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).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Perceived Barriers
Time frame: At one week from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Perceived Barriers. 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).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Self-Efficacy
Time frame: At baseline
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy for Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed using a scale with nine items with a four-point Likert response option to assess individual beliefs about ability to arrange and complete a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for lung cancer. The range of scores is 9 to 36 (higher levels of self-efficacy).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Self-Efficacy
Time frame: At one week from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy for Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed using a scale with nine items with a four-point Likert response option to assess individual beliefs about ability to arrange and complete a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for lung cancer. The range of scores is 9 to 36 (higher levels of self-efficacy).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion
Time frame: At baseline
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion. Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a single item requiring dichotomous (Y/N) response regarding a discussion with their healthcare provider.
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion
Time frame: At one week from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion. Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a single item requiring dichotomous (Y/N) response regarding a discussion with their healthcare provider.
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion
Time frame: At 6 months from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion. Occurrence of a Patient-Clinician Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening will be assessed with a single item requiring dichotomous (Y/N) response regarding a discussion with their healthcare provider.
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Screening Uptake
Time frame: At baseline
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Screening Uptake, Lung Cancer Screening Uptake will be assessed via self-report via the stages of adoption algorithm for lung screening. There are seven stages (unaware, aware but unengaged, undecided, decided not to act, decided to act, action, and maintenance).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Screening Uptake
Time frame: At one week from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Screening Uptake, Lung Cancer Screening Uptake will be assessed via self-report via the stages of adoption algorithm for lung screening. There are seven stages (unaware, aware but unengaged, undecided, decided not to act, decided to act, action, and maintenance).
Effectiveness of LungTalk - Screening Uptake
Time frame: At 6 months from baseline survey completion
The assessment plan is intended to compare the effectiveness of a tailored (LungTalk) versus non-tailored health communication and decision support tool delivered online to improve Screening Uptake, Lung Cancer Screening Uptake will be assessed via self-report via the stages of adoption algorithm for lung screening. There are seven stages (unaware, aware but unengaged, undecided, decided not to act, decided to act, action, and maintenance).

Results and safety

Results posted to the registry on 21 Nov 2025, as reported by the sponsor. Figures are copied from the record, not re-analysed. Full results on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Participant flow

Group	Started	Completed
Tailored Health Communication Intervention (LungTalk)	256	240
Non-tailored Intervention	256	243

Primary outcome: Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Reach

Time frame: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook. Number. Unit: participants

Measure	Unique Facebook Users Who Saw the Add n = 3109482
Value	1048191

Population analysed: Facebook-provided metrics were collected at the aggregate level (impressions, reach, engagements, and clicks). Because individual-level identifiers were not captured, it is not possible to report a precise 'number of people analyzed' from the platform; therefore, all Facebook-derived outcomes are reported as aggregate counts and rates. The total reach number on FB which is 3,109,482 is used instead.

Primary outcome: Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Link Clicks

Time frame: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook. Number. Unit: unique clicks

Measure	Unique Facebook Users Who Clicked on the Link n = 1048191
Value	24816

Population analysed: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants screened for study interest prior to enrollment

Primary outcome: Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Impressions

Time frame: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook. Number. Unit: number of times the add was viewed

Measure	Ad on Screen n = 3109482
Value	3109482

Primary outcome: Effectiveness of LungTalk - Knowledge Assessment

Time frame: At baseline. Mean (Full Range). Unit: score on a scale

Measure	Tailored Health Communication Intervention (LungTalk) n = 240	Non-tailored Intervention n = 243
Value	4 (0 to 9)	4 (0 to 9)

Adverse events

Time frame: 6 months post-enrolment for all participants who completed the baseline survey. Other adverse events reported at 0% frequency or more

Group	Serious adverse events	Other adverse events	Deaths
Tailored Health Communication Intervention (LungTalk)	0 of 240 (0%)	0 of 240 (0%)	0 of 240
Non-tailored Intervention	0 of 243 (0%)	0 of 243 (0%)	0 of 243

Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…

Research links

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Nov 2025.
Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
BackgroundFinal 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/RecommendationStatementFinal/lung-cancer-screening
BackgroundUnited 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/RecommendationStatementFinal/lung-cancer-screening
Background: PubMed 21714641National Lung Screening Trial Research Team; Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. Epub 2011 Jun 29.
BackgroundDe 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
BackgroundCenters 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
Background: PubMed 31019776Okereke IC, Nishi S, Zhou J, Goodwin JS. Trends in lung cancer screening in the United States, 2016-2017. J Thorac Dis. 2019 Mar;11(3):873-881. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.01.105.
Background: PubMed 26701339Carter-Harris L, Ceppa DP, Hanna N, Rawl SM. Lung cancer screening: what do long-term smokers know and believe? Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):59-68. doi: 10.1111/hex.12433. Epub 2015 Dec 23.
Background: PubMed 28122849Carter-Harris L, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ, Roth JA, Buist DSM. A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening. Fam Pract. 2017 Apr 1;34(2):239-244. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw146.
Background: PubMed 29552458Carter-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. 2018 Feb 3;10:49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.01.018. eCollection 2018 Jun.
Background: PubMed 29146565Carter-Harris L, Comer RS, Goyal A, Vode EC, Hanna N, Ceppa D, Rawl SM. Development and Usability Testing of a Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Nov 16;6(11):e225. doi: 10.2196/resprot.8694.
Background: PubMed 24088228Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013 Oct 2;8:117. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.
BackgroundUnited States Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Lung cancer screening. Accessed October 10. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/lung-cancer-screening
Individual participant dataSharing planned: No

Related trials for Lung Cancer

Recruiting
MRD-Guided Postoperative Surveillance and Adaptive Treatment for Resectable Lung Cancer
Lung Neoplasms, Neoadjuvant Therapy
Not yet recruitingPhase 3
Intraarterial Therapies Plus Tislelizumab Plus Lenvatinib Versus Tislelizumab Plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (Icc)
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
A Study to Compare the Efficacy, Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Immunogenicity Between SB27 and Keytruda in Subjects With Metastatic Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Stage IV
RecruitingObservational study
Label-free Femtosecond Laser Imaging Combined With the Fast Lung Artificial Intelligence Model for Rapid Intraoperative Diagnosis of Lung Surgical Specimens: A Multicentre, Prospective, Parallel-workflow, Non-inferiority Study.
Lung Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of Calderasib (MK-1084) Plus Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in Participants With KRAS G12C Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) With Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) ≥50% (MK-1084-004/KANDLELIT-004)
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Referral and contact

AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.

Lisa Carter-Bawa, PhD principal investigator

Hackensack Meridian Health

1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing LungTalk and Non-tailored intervention - Standard of practice in people with Lung Cancer, run by Hackensack Meridian Health at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Nov 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 21 Nov 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Reaching Screening Eligible Individuals Via Social Media - Reach (time frame: 11-month period ad remained active on Facebook). The study lists 19 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05824273, which also lists 56 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Nov 2025.