Systematic review and meta-analysis of nurse-led shared decision-making for lung cancer screening uptake.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of nurse-led shared decision-making (SDM) on lung cancer screening outcomes, including low-dose CT (LDCT) uptake, benign findings, early cancer detection and willingness to participate among high-risk populations. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Medline via OvidSP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE via OvidSP, Web of Science, Scopus, grey literature databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to March 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies evaluating nurse-led SDM interventions in high-risk lung cancer populations, reporting outcomes including LDCT uptake rates, screening results (Lung-RADS (Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System) classifications), early-stage cancer detection or willingness to participate. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and observational studies were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (for non-randomised studies) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (for randomised controlled trials). Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Meta-regression explored sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: 13 studies (n=13 608 participants) were included, comprising 10 single-arm studies and three comparative studies. In single-arm studies without control groups, nurse-led SDM programmes achieved a pooled LDCT uptake rate of 98% (95% CI 28% to 100%; I²=99%), and willingness to participate was 68% (95% CI 24% to 93%; I²=98%). In comparative studies, nurse-led SDM showed no significant difference in LDCT uptake compared with usual care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02; I²=0%), suggesting non-inferiority rather than superiority. Among individuals who completed screening, 81% (95% CI 77% to 85%) had benign or low-risk findings (Lung-RADS I/II), and 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%) were diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, rates consistent with benchmark screening trials. Meta-regression identified female sex as positively associated with uptake (β=0.54, p<0.001), while current tobacco use was negatively associated (β=-0.37, p=0.033). The risk of bias was moderate to serious across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative evidence suggests that nurse-led SDM achieves equivalent LDCT uptake to standard care approaches, indicating feasibility as an alternative service delivery model. However, the predominance of single-arm studies, high heterogeneity and moderate-to-serious risk of bias limit causal inference. High uptake rates in single-arm studies likely reflect selection bias rather than intervention effectiveness. Current evidence supports the feasibility but not the superiority of nurse-led SDM. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to establish comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness before recommending widespread integration of nurse-led SDM into lung cancer screening programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD420251033595. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1033595.