Universal Tobacco Screening and Opt-Out Treatment Referral Strategy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9525

2024-04-23

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This quality improvement study examines whether a universal screening and opt-out referral model could promote racial and ethnic equity in access and use of tobacco treatment among patients with cancer.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Tobacco Dependence Treatment in Oncology: Initial Patient Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Christine E. Sheffer,Jeffrey S. Stein,Cara Petrucci,Martin C. Mahoney,Shirley Johnson,Pamela Giesie,Ellen Carl,Laurie Krupski,Allison N. Tegge,Mary E. Reid,Warren K. Bickel,Andrew Hyland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113907

IF: 4.614

2020-05-31

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Despite the importance of smoking cessation to cancer care treatment, historically, few cancer centers have provided treatment for tobacco dependence. To address this gap, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3i). As part of this effort, this study examined implementation outcomes in a cohort of cancer survivors (CSs) who smoked cigarettes in the first year of an ongoing process to develop and implement a robust Tobacco Treatment Service at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. We provide a comprehensive description of the new tobacco use assessment and referral process, and of the characteristics of cancer survivors who agreed to treatment including traditional tobacco-related psychosocial and cancer treatment-related characteristics and novel characteristics such as delay discounting rates. We also examine characteristic differences among those who agreed to treatment between those who attended and those who did not attend treatment. As the new tobacco assessment was implemented, the number of referrals increased dramatically. The mean number of treatment sessions attended was 4.45 (SD = 2.98) and the six-month point prevalence intention to treat abstinence rate among those who attended was 22.7%. However, only 6.4% agreed to treatment and 4% attended at least one treatment session. A large proportion of cancer survivors who agreed to treatment were women, of older age, of lower socioeconomic status (SES), and who had high levels of depressive symptomology. The findings demonstrate that the implementation of system changes can significantly improve the identification of cancer survivors who use tobacco and are referred to tobacco use treatment. Among those who attend, treatment is effective. However, the findings also suggest that a systematic assessment of barriers to engagement is needed and that cancer survivors may benefit from additional treatment tailoring. We present plans to address these implementation challenges. Systematic electronic medical record (EMR)-sourced referral to tobacco treatment is a powerful tool for reaching cancer survivors who smoke, but more research is needed to determine how to enhance engagement and tailor treatment processes.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
Multilevel approaches to address disparities in lung cancer screening: a study protocol

Randi M Williams,Julia Whealan,Kathryn L Taylor,Lucile Adams-Campbell,Kristen E Miller,Kristie Foley,George Luta,Heather Brandt,Katharine Glassmeyer,Anu Sangraula,Peyton Yee,Kaylin Camidge,Joseph Blumenthal,Saumil Modi,Heather Kratz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00553-4

2024-02-16

Abstract:Background: Low-dose computed tomography (lung cancer screening) can reduce lung cancer-specific mortality by 20-24%. Based on this evidence, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual lung cancer screening for asymptomatic high-risk individuals. Despite this recommendation, utilization is low (3-20%). Lung cancer screening may be particularly beneficial for African American patients because they are more likely to have advanced disease, lower survival, and lower screening rates compared to White individuals. Evidence points to multilevel approaches that simultaneously address multiple determinants to increase screening rates and decrease lung cancer burden in minoritized populations. This study will test the effects of provider- and patient-level strategies for promoting equitable lung cancer screening utilization. Methods: Guided by the Health Disparities Research Framework and the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, we will conduct a quasi-experimental study with four primary care clinics within a large health system (MedStar Health). Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening, defined as 50-80 years old, ≥ 20 pack-years, currently smoking, or quit < 15 years, no history of lung cancer, who have an appointment scheduled with their provider, and who are non-adherent to screening will be identified via the EHR, contacted, and enrolled (N = 184 for implementation clinics, N = 184 for comparison clinics; total N = 368). Provider participants will include those practicing at the partner clinics (N = 26). To increase provider-prompted discussions about lung screening, an electronic health record (EHR) clinician reminder will be sent to providers prior to scheduled visits with the screening-eligible participants. To increase patient-level knowledge and patient activation about screening, an inreach specialist will conduct a pre-visit phone-based educational session with participants. Patient participants will be assessed at baseline and 1-week post-visit to measure provider-patient discussion, screening intentions, and knowledge. Screening referrals and screening completion rates will be assessed via the EHR at 6 months. We will use mixed methods and multilevel assessments of patients and providers to evaluate the implementation outcomes (adoption, feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity). Discussion: The study will inform future work designed to measure the independent and overlapping contributions of the multilevel implementation strategies to advance equity in lung screening rates. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04675476. Registered December 19, 2020.
Implementation, enrollment, and engagement in an opt‐out telehealth pharmacist‐assisted tobacco treatment program for patients seen in oncology outpatient clinics

K. Michael Cummings,Benjamin A. Toll,Vincent Talbot,Avery Roberson,Dianne Wilson,Martha Dunlap,Emily C. Ware,Amanda M. Palmer,Asia A. Bliss,Vincent S. Anokye,Graham Warren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35291

IF: 6.9209

2024-03-30

Cancer

Abstract:Objective To describe the workflow, reach, cost, and self‐reported quit rates for an opt‐out tobacco treatment program (TTP) for patients seen in 43 oncology outpatient clinics. Methods Between May 25, 2021, and December 31, 2022, adult patients (≥18 years) visiting clinics affiliated with the Medical University of South Carolina Hollings Cancer Center were screened for smoking status. Those currently smoking were referred to a telehealth pharmacy‐assisted TTP. An attempt was made to contact referred patients by phone. Patients reached were offered free smoking cessation counseling and a 2‐week starter kit of nicotine replacement medication. A random sample of 420 patients enrolled in the TTP were selected to participate in a telephone survey to assess smoking status 4 to 12 months after enrollment. Results During the reference period 35,756 patients were screened and 9.3% were identified as currently smoking. Among the 3319 patients referred to the TTP at least once, 2393 (72.1%) were reached by phone, of whom 426 (12.8%) were ineligible for treatment, 458 (13.8%) opted out of treatment, and 1509 (45.5%) received treatment. More than 90% of TTP enrollees smoked daily, with an average of 13.1 cigarettes per day. Follow‐up surveys were completed on 167 of 420 patients, of whom 23.4% to 33.5% reported not smoking; if all nonresponders to the survey are counted as smoking, the range of quit rates is 9.3% to 13.3%. Conclusion The findings demonstrate the feasibility of reaching and delivering smoking cessation treatments to patients from a diverse set of geographically dispersed oncology clinics.

oncology
Effect of a Personalized Tobacco Treatment Intervention on Smoking Abstinence in Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening

Brenda Cartmel,Lisa M Fucito,Krysten W Bold,Susan Neveu,Fangyong Li,Alana M Rojewski,Ralitza Gueorguieva,Stephanie S O'Malley,Roy S Herbst,Benjamin A Toll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2023.11.012

Abstract:Introduction: To determine whether personalized gain-framed messaging and biomarker feedback related to tobacco cessation or reduction decrease smoking behavior in patients undergoing or eligible for lung cancer screening. Methods: Between 2016 and 2020, 188 patients were enrolled in a two-phase, sequential, randomized controlled trial. Phase 1 evaluated whether standard of care (SC) (five in-person counseling sessions and 8 weeks of nicotine patch) plus gain-framed messaging (GFM) versus SC would increase 8-week biochemically verified smoking cessation rates. In 143 participants randomized in phase 2, we tested whether feedback on smoking-related biomarkers would reduce 6-month self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day compared with a no feedback control. Chi-square test and mixed effects repeated measures analyses were used to evaluate group differences. Results: Participants were 62.5 ± 5.6 (mean ± SD) years of age, had a 50.3 ± 21 pack-year smoking history, and were smoking 16.9 ± 9.9 cigarettes per day. At 8 weeks, there was no difference in quit rates between those randomized to SC plus GFM (n = 15 of 93, 16.1%) and those randomized to SC (n = 16 of 95, 16.8%), with p equals to 0.90. At the 6-month post-randomization follow-up, number of cigarettes smoked per day was similar in the feedback (least-squares mean = 7.5, 95% confidence interval: 6.0-9.1) and no feedback arms (7.7, 95% confidence interval: 6.2-9.3), with p equals to 0.87. Conclusions: Gain-framed messaging and health feedback did not significantly improve quit rates relative to comprehensive standard of care. Nevertheless, the overall program achieved clinically meaningful smoking quit rates in this older high pack-year cohort, highlighting the importance of intensive tobacco treatment for patients undergoing lung cancer screening. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTERED WITH CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02658032.
Tobacco treatment in the setting of lung cancer screening

James E Verdone,Ellen T Marciniak,Janaki Deepak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MCP.0000000000001030

2024-01-01

Abstract:Purpose of review: Lung cancer screening by low-dose CT is an increasingly implemented preventive medicine tool. Screening for lung cancer is incomplete without addressing problematic tobacco use, the greatest modifiable risk factor in the development of lung cancer. This review describes recent work related to lung cancer screening and treatment of tobacco use in that context. Recent findings: Implementation of lung cancer screening demonstrates socioeconomic disparities in terms of adherence to screening as well as likelihood of successful tobacco dependence treatment. Active tobacco dependence is a common comorbidity for patients undergoing lung cancer screening. The optimal implementation of tobacco dependence treatment in the context of lung cancer screening is still an area of active investigation. Summary: Treatment of tobacco dependence at time of lung cancer screening is a major opportunity for clinicians to intervene to reduce the major modifiable risk factor for lung cancer, tobacco use. Providing comprehensive tobacco dependence treatment is most effective using combination pharmacologic and behavioral interventions. Practices providing comprehensive treatment will benefit from accurate documentation for billing and coding and supplementing with external resources such as state Quit Lines.
Referral Strategies to a Tobacco Quitline and Racial and/or Ethnic Differences in Participation.

Elizabeth T. Russo,Margaret Reid,Rashida Taher,Mona Sharifi,Snehal N. Shah,Elizabeth T Russo,Snehal N Shah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-1026G

2019-10-03

PEDIATRICS

Abstract:Tobacco use inflicts a disproportionate burden of disease on people of color. We evaluated the reach among African American and Hispanic smokers in Boston of 2 referral strategies to the Massachusetts quitline: (1) a provider-referred strategy based in pediatric and dental clinics and (2) a targeted media campaign to promote self-referral to the quitline.

pediatrics
Equitable implementation of lung cancer screening: avoiding its potential to mirror existing inequities among people who use tobacco

Emily Bilenduke,Shacoria Anderson,Alison Brenner,Jessica Currier,Jan M Eberth,Jaron King,Stephanie R Land,Betsy C Risendal,Jackilen Shannon,Leeann N Siegel,Mary Wangen,Austin R Waters,Whitney E Zahnd,Jamie L Studts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01790-z

Abstract:Purpose: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, but the advent of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography offers a tremendous opportunity to improve lung cancer outcomes. Unfortunately, implementation of lung cancer screening has been hampered by substantial barriers and remains suboptimal. Specifically, the commentary emphasizes the intersectionality of smoking history and several important sociodemographic characteristics and identities that should inform lung cancer screening outreach and engagement efforts, including socioeconomic considerations (e.g., health insurance status), racial and ethnic identity, LGBTQ + identity, mental health history, military experience/veteran status, and geographic residence in addressing specific community risk factors and future interventions in efforts to make strides toward equitable lung cancer screening. Methods: Members of the Equitable Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening Interest Group with the Cancer Prevention and Control Network (CPCRN) provide a critical commentary based on existing literature regarding smoking trends in the US and lung cancer screening uptake to propose opportunities to enhance implementation and support equitable distribution of the benefits of lung cancer screening. Conclusion: The present commentary utilizes information about historical trends in tobacco use to highlight opportunities for targeted outreach efforts to engage communities at high risk with information about the lung cancer screening opportunity. Future efforts toward equitable implementation of lung cancer screening should focus on multi-level implementation strategies that engage and work in concert with community partners to co-create approaches that leverage strengths and reduce barriers within specific communities to achieve the potential of lung cancer screening.
Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Testing Behavioral Economic Implementation Strategies to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Patients With Cancer Who Smoke

Brian P Jenssen,Robert Schnoll,Rinad S Beidas,Justin Bekelman,Anna-Marika Bauer,Sarah Evers-Casey,Tierney Fisher,Callie Scott,Jody Nicoloso,Peter Gabriel,David A Asch,Alison M Buttenheim,Jessica Chen,Julissa Melo,Dwayne Grant,Michael Horst,Randall Oyer,Lawrence N Shulman,Alicia B W Clifton,Adina Lieberman,Tasnim Salam,Katharine A Rendle,Krisda H Chaiyachati,Rachel C Shelton,Oluwadamilola Fayanju,E Paul Wileyto,Sue Ware,Daniel Blumenthal,Daniel Ragusano,Frank T Leone,Brian P. Jenssen,Rinad S. Beidas,David A. Asch,Alison M. Buttenheim,Lawrence N. Shulman,Alicia B.W. Clifton,Katharine A. Rendle,Krisda H. Chaiyachati,Rachel C. Shelton,E. Paul Wileyto,Frank T. Leone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00355

IF: 45.3

2023-07-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology. METHODS We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)–based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model. RESULTS From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P < .0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P < .0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004). CONCLUSION EHR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.

oncology
Evaluating chronic disease approaches to ameliorate tobacco-related health disparities: Study protocol of a hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial

Steven S Fu,Patrick Hammett,David Nelson,Andrew Busch,Warren McKinney,Pravesh Sharma,Christi A Patten,Nathalia Gutierrez Sacasa,Lynn Andreae,Sandra Japuntich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101380

2024-10-16

Abstract:Background: Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities experience higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and related chronic conditions compared to White communities due to disparities in tobacco exposure. Smoking can be effectively treated but evidence-based treatments are less likely to be offered to or used by BIPOC patients. We present the study protocol of the Smoking Cessation Outreach for Racial Equity (SCORE) trial that tests the effect of adding longitudinal care coordination to current standard of care for smoking cessation to promote health equity among BIPOC patients. Methods: Longitudinal Proactive Outreach (LPO; 4 culturally tailored outreach call cycles over one year by motivational interviewing trained counselors to connect patients to cessation counseling and medication) will be added to the current standard of care, Ask-Advise-Connect (AAC; primary care providers asking all patients if they smoke, and if smoking, advising to quit and connecting to treatment). We will conduct a hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial to examine the direct effect of AAC + LPO (a multilevel health system intervention) vs. AAC on population-level combustible tobacco abstinence at 18 months and treatment utilization among 2000 BIPOC adults who smoke across two healthcare systems in Minnesota. Participants will be surveyed at 6, 12, and, 18 months post-enrollment to assess outcomes. The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed combustible cigarette abstinence at 18 months. Discussion: LPO has potential to promote health equity by addressing barriers caused by structural racism, including access to care, care fragmentation, and provider racism, by systematically reaching out to all BIPOC patients who smoke. Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT05671380.
Treating Tobacco Dependence at the Intersection of Diversity, Poverty, and Mental Illness: A Randomized Feasibility and Replication Trial

Norval J Hickman 3rd,Kevin L Delucchi,Judith J Prochaska

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntv034

Abstract:Introduction: In an ethnically-diverse, uninsured psychiatric sample with co-occurring drug/alcohol addiction, we evaluated the feasibility and reproducibility of a tobacco treatment intervention. The intervention previously demonstrated efficacy in insured psychiatric and nonpsychiatric samples with 20.0%-25.0% abstinence at 18 months. Methods: Daily smokers, recruited in 2009-2010 from psychiatric units at an urban public hospital, were randomized to usual care (on-unit nicotine replacement plus quit advice) or intervention, which added a Transtheoretical-model tailored, computer-assisted intervention, stage-matched manual, brief counseling, and 10-week post-hospitalization nicotine replacement. Results: The sample (N = 100, 69% recruitment rate, age M = 40) was 56% racial/ethnic minority, 65% male, 79% unemployed, and 48% unstably housed, diagnosed with unipolar (54%) and bipolar (14%) depression and psychotic disorders (46%); 77% reported past-month illicit drug use. Prior to hospitalization, participants averaged 19 (SD = 11) cigarettes/day for 23 (SD = 13) years; 80% smoked within 30 minutes of awakening; 25% were preparing to quit. Encouraging and comparable to effects in the general population, 7-day point prevalence abstinence for intervention versus control was 12.5% versus 7.3% at 3 months, 17.5% versus 8.5% at 6 months, and 26.2% versus 16.7% at 12 months. Retention exceeded 80% over 12 months. The odds of abstinence increased over time, predicted by higher self-efficacy, greater perceived social status, and diagnosis of psychotic disorder compared to unipolar depression. Conclusions: Findings indicate uninsured smokers with serious mental illness can engage in tobacco treatment research with quit rates comparable to the general population. A larger investigation is warranted. Inclusion of diverse smokers with mental illness in clinical trials is supported and encouraged.
Achieving Equitable Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in a Texas Safety Net Health System

Michael Pignone,Patrick Chang,Nicole Kluz,Brandon Altillo,Andrea Fekete,Amaris Martinez,Rachel Medbery,Yvonne Queralt,Koonj Shah,LaTasha Vanin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2024.09.016

2024-09-27

Abstract:Introduction: A lung cancer screening program using low dose CT (LDCT) in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Central Texas was developed and assessed for equitable implementation. Methods: From 11/2020-8/2023, patients aged 55-77 years who currently smoked or quit within 15 years with ≥20 pack-years of exposure were identified through EHR query and mailed outreach, or through direct provider referrals. A bilingual social worker confirmed eligibility, provided telecare shared decision-making (SDM), coordinated screening, and offered smoking cessation. To assess equity, LDCT completion across demographics was compared, in 2023. Results: A total of 6,486 patients were mailed outreach materials; 479 patients responded, of whom 108 (22.5%) were eligible and 71 (65.7%) participated in SDM. 629 eligible patients were referred internally; 579 (92.0%) completed SDM. Of the 650 patients who completed SDM, 636 (97.8%) agreed to screening. Mean age was 61.7 years; 38.1% were female. The population was diverse: 35.8% identified as Latino, 17.8% as African-American, 26.8% had Medicare or Medicaid, 48.0% used the county medical assistance program, 14.2% were uninsured, and 76.7% currently smoked. Overall, 528 (83.0%) patients completed LDCT. There were no statistically significant differences in completion by age, gender, race/ethnicity, or insurance status. Spanish-speaking patients were more likely to complete the CT than English speakers (OR 2.22, 95% CI=1.22, 4.41) and those who formerly smoked were more likely to complete the CT than patients who currently smoked (OR 1.93, 95% CI=1.12, 3.51). Conclusions: The navigator-centered program achieved equitable implementation of lung cancer screening in a diverse FQHC system.
Implementing Lung Cancer Screening and Prevention in Academic Centers, Affiliated Network Offices and Collaborating Care Sites

Cary A. Presant,Ravi Salgia,Prakash Kulkarni,Brian L. Tiep,Shamel Sanani,Benjamin Leach,Kimlin Ashing,Jossie Sandoval,Mina S. Sedrak,Shana Landau,Sophia Yeung,Dan Raz,Shanmugga Subbiah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061820

IF: 3.9

2020-06-11

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Lung cancer is one of the deadliest and yet largely preventable neoplasms. Smoking cessation and lung cancer screening are effective yet underutilized lung cancer interventions. City of Hope Medical Center, a National Cancer Institute (NCI)- designated comprehensive cancer center, has 27 community cancer centers and has prioritized tobacco control and lung cancer screening throughout its network. Despite challenges, we are implementing and monitoring the City of Hope Tobacco Control Initiative including (1) a Planning and Implementation Committee; (2) integration of IT, e.g., medical records and clinician notification/prompts to facilitate screening, cessation referral, and digital health, e.g., telehealth and social media; (3) clinician training and endorsing national guidelines; (4) providing clinical champions at all sites for site leadership; (5) Coverage and Payment reform and aids to facilitate patient access and reduce cost barriers; (6) increasing tobacco exposure screening for all patients; (7) smoking cessation intervention and evaluation—patient-centered recommendations for smoking cessation for all current and recent quitters along with including QuitLine referral for current smokers and smoking care-givers; and (8) establishing a Tobacco Registry for advancing science and discoveries including team science for basic, translation and clinical studies. These strategies are intended to inform screening, prevention and treatment research and patient-centered care.

medicine, general & internal
Sustainability of an Opt-Out Electronic-Health Record-based Tobacco Treatment Consult Service at a large safety-net hospital: A 6-year Analysis

Adriana Flores,Renda Soylemez Wiener,Stephanie Hon,Cornelia Wakeman,Jinesa Howard,Nikita Virani,Bruce Mattus,Alexis Gallardo Foreman,Johar Singh,Linda Rosen,Katia Bulekova,Hasmeena Kathuria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntae023

2024-02-06

Abstract:Abstract Introduction Our safety-net hospital implemented a hospital-based tobacco treatment intervention in 2016. We previously showed the intervention, an “opt-out” Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based Best Practice Alert (BPA)+order-set that triggers consultation to an inpatient Tobacco Treatment Consult (TTC) service for all patients who smoke, improves smoking abstinence. We now report on sustainability, 6 years after inception. Methods We analyzed data collected between July 2016-June 2022 of patients documented as ‘currently smoking’ in the EHR. Across the 6 years, we used Pearson’s correlation analysis to compare Adoption (clinician acceptance of the BPA+order-set, thus generating consultation to the TTC service); Reach (number of consultations completed by the TTC service); and Effectiveness (receipt of pharmacotherapy orders between patients receiving and not receiving consultations). Results Among 39,558 adult admissions (July 2016-June 2022) with “currently smoking” status in the EHR for whom the BPA triggered, clinicians accepted the TTC order-set on 50.4% (19,932/39,558), though acceptance varied across services [e.g., Cardiology (71%) and Obstetrics-Gynecology (12%)]. The TTC service consulted on 17% (6779/39,558) of patients due to staffing constraints. Consultations ordered (r=-0.28, p=0.59) and completed (r= 0.45, p=0.37) remained stable over six-years. Compared to patients not receiving consultations, patients receiving consultations were more likely to receive pharmacotherapy orders overall (inpatient: 50.8% vs 35.1%, p<.0001; at discharge: 27.1% vs 10%, p<.0001) and in each year. Conclusions The “opt-out” EHR-based TTC service is sustainable, though many did not receive consultations due to resource constraints. Healthcare systems should elevate priority of hospital-based tobacco treatment programs to increase reach to underserved populations. IMPLICATIONS Our study shows that opt-out approaches that utilize the EHR are a sustainable approach to provide evidence-based tobacco treatment to all hospitalized individuals who smoke, regardless of readiness to stop smoking and clinical condition.

public, environmental & occupational health,substance abuse
A multi-level system quality improvement project to reduce disparities in lung cancer screening: The Sylvester Lung Screening Project.

Nicole Ann Gay,Melanhy T Da Silva,Vanessa Patricia Vega,Amber Thomassen,Jessica MacIntyre,Georgette Valls-Delgado,Coral Olazagasti,Estelamari Rodriguez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.6518

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:6518 Background: Racial disparities in lung cancer mortality and screening have been well documented in the USA. Annual screening with low dose Computed Tomography (CT) scans is completed in fewer than 6% of the eligible population. Research suggests that many factors contribute to low screening uptake, including barriers to care at patient, clinician, healthcare system, and community levels. In collaboration with the American Cancer Society, the University of Miami/ Sylvester Cancer Center underwent a multi-level system quality improvement (QI) project with the goal to decrease lung cancer screening disparities and improve guideline concordant lung cancer screening across the health care system. Methods: During the one-year multi-level QI project, interventions were put into place to increase lung cancer screening exams via improvements in EMR- identification of eligible patients, patient navigation and expanded provider education services in primary care clinics. Patient level interventions included a marketing campaign, patient navigation, and interpreters to address language barriers. The Patient-interface of the EMR ‘Health Maintenance Gap’ was optimized to alert eligible patients about screening. In addition, a full-time lung cancer screening navigator provided culturally competent, patient-centered counseling, while allowing for an increased capability to manage a higher volume of patients. Provider level interventions included teaching sessions about lung cancer screening and motivational communication skills, and BPA alerts. The primary outcome was the change in the number of screened patients. Results: With the implementation of these multi-level interventions, there was a twenty five percent improvement in the number of lung cancer screening exams completed during the project period January 2022- December 2022 compared to 2021 baseline, from 20 to 25%. The screening rate was highest among Hispanics (12%), followed by Blacks (8%), and Non- Hispanic Whites (NHW) (6%). The majority of LDCT results were Lung RADS Category 1 or 2 (93%). Conclusions: Multi-level interventions that target patients, clinicians, and the health care system can improve lung cancer screening rates in a short-term period. Developing patient-centered, culturally competent interventions is key to reducing disparities in lung cancer screening. This QI intervention was strengthened by tailoring intervention components to the educational primary care physicians and simplifying the referral process. [Table: see text]

oncology
Promoting Community Awareness of Lung Cancer Screening Among Disparate Populations: Results of the cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education Project.

M. Tingen,S. Looney,T. Joshua,A. Mccall,Lovoria B. Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000748

IF: 2.6

2019-10-10

Cancer Nursing

Abstract:BACKGROUND Lung cancer is the no. 1 cause of cancer death in the United States. Racial/ethnic minority and medically underserved populations suffer higher mortality than whites. Early detection through uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among screening-eligible adults may mitigate high mortality. However, nearly 5 years since the publication of the US Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guideline, population awareness of LDCT is low, and only 4% of screening-eligible adults have undergone screening. OBJECTIVE This project used an education intervention to change participants' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer risk factors and lung cancer and to connect eligible individuals to LDCT screening and tobacco cessation services. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS Community-engaged strategies were used to deliver a 4-week educational program in 13 community sites. Trained community health workers delivered the intervention. The intervention was guided by the Health Belief Model. Data were collected by survey to 481 participants; 93% were African American, the majority was female (73.1%), mean age was 58.3 (SD, 10.9) years. RESULTS There were knowledge increase regarding lung cancer screening (P = .001), a significant decrease in Perceived Severity and Perceived Barriers subscales (P = .001), and an overall increase in response to Perceived Benefits of lung cancer screening and Self-efficacy (P = .001). Fifty-four percent of tobacco users engaged in cessation; 38% of screening-eligible participants underwent LDCT screening. CONCLUSIONS Community health workers are effective in increasing awareness of lung cancer screening and affecting behavior change among disparate populations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Community health workers may have a clinical role in LDCT shared decision making.

Medicine
Abstract A095: Differences in providers' perceived preparedness and actual delivery of screening and intervention practices for patients who smoke cigarettes between two types of healthcare centers serving rural and/or medically underserved areas of Texas

Ammar D. Siddiqi,Maggie Britton,Tzuan A. Chen,Isabel Martinez Leal,Brian J. Carter,Teresa Williams,Kathleen Casey,Kim Skeene,Hector Sanchez,Sriya Kakarla,Lorraine R. Reitzel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a095

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: Rural populations in the US bear a disproportionate burden of cancer mortality. This is partly due to their elevated tobacco use rates. Best practice guidelines promote tobacco use screening and brief intervention at every patient contact; however, limited literature evaluates compliance in healthcare centers in rural and/or medically underserved areas (MUAs). Here, we examine providers' use of the 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange) and motivational interventions (for those not ready to quit; e.g., 5Rs: Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, Repetition) with their patients in substance use treatment centers (SUTCs) and medical healthcare centers (MHCs; e.g., Federally Qualified Health Centers) located in rural and/or MUAs in Texas to identify screening and intervention gaps. Methods: Providers from participating healthcare centers (12 SUTCs, 9 MHCs) responded to a solicitation assessing interest in (later) receiving tobacco use intervention training and resources. In total, 347 providers from SUTCs (n=174) and MHCs (n=173) serving 126 counties responded to an anonymized survey about their smoking screening and intervention delivery over the last month, along with their rating of how prepared they thought their healthcare center's provider workforce was to help patients stop using tobacco (completely or somewhat prepared vs neutral, somewhat unprepared, or not at all prepared). Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models were used to assess the differences between SUTCs and MHCs for continuous and binary variables, respectively. Results: Overall, providers Asked 68.31% of their last-month patients whether they smoked cigarettes. Of patients who endorsed smoking (23.94%), providers Advised 58.68% to quit and Assessed 51.90% about their interest in quitting. However, providers only Assisted 35.87% of patients who endorsed smoking in making a quit attempt and 22.79% in Arranging a follow-up. A significantly greater percentage of patients were Asked (p=.0226) and Advised (p=.0025) to quit at MHCs (Ask=77.21%, Advise=72.35%) than at SUTCs (Ask=59.57%, Advise=45.34%). Providers delivered brief motivational interventions to 70.16% of patients who were not ready to quit smoking, with no significant differences between SUTCs and MHCs. Finally, 56.07% of providers at MHCs reported their workforce was prepared to help their patients quit tobacco, significantly greater than the 40.80% reported at SUTCs (p=.0268). Conclusion: Patients at MHCs were more likely to receive comprehensive tobacco cessation care than those at SUTCs in this sample of healthcare centers serving rural and/or MUAs in Texas. However, providers at both types of healthcare centers would benefit from greater workforce preparation to enable the provision of consistent tobacco use screening and brief intervention delivery in line with best practice guidelines. Future work will use these data for intervention and implementation strategy planning to improve centers' capacity to comprehensively address their patients' tobacco use. Citation Format: Ammar D. Siddiqi, Maggie Britton, Tzuan A. Chen, Isabel Martinez Leal, Brian J. Carter, Teresa Williams, Kathleen Casey, Kim Skeene, Hector Sanchez, Sriya Kakarla, Lorraine R. Reitzel. Differences in providers' perceived preparedness and actual delivery of screening and intervention practices for patients who smoke cigarettes between two types of healthcare centers serving rural and/or medically underserved areas of Texas [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr A095.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Comparing Smoking Cessation Interventions among Underserved Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol

Rachel Kohn,Anil Vachani,Dylan Small,Alisa J Stephens-Shields,Dorothy Sheu,Vanessa L Madden,Brian A Bayes,Marzana Chowdhury,Sadie Friday,Jannie Kim,Michael K Gould,Mohamed H Ismail,Beth Creekmur,Matthew A Facktor,Charlotte Collins,Kristina K Blessing,Christine M Neslund-Dudas,Michael J Simoff,Elizabeth R Alleman,Leonard H Epstein,Michael A Horst,Michael E Scott,Kevin G Volpp,Scott D Halpern,Joanna L Hart,Stakeholder Advisory Committee,Andrea Ferris,George Fernandez,Amanda Holm,Sarah Evers-Casey,Benjamin Broder,Curt Hammock,Karen Yacobucci,M Regina Clanton,Ryan Coffman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202104-499SD

Abstract:Smoking burdens are greatest among underserved patients. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces mortality among individuals at risk for smoking-associated lung cancer. Although LCS programs must offer smoking cessation support, the interventions that best promote cessation among underserved patients in this setting are unknown. This stakeholder-engaged, pragmatic randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of four interventions promoting smoking cessation among underserved patients referred for LCS. By using an additive study design, all four arms provide standard "ask-advise-refer" care. Arm 2 adds free or subsidized pharmacologic cessation aids, arm 3 adds financial incentives up to $600 for cessation, and arm 4 adds a mobile device-delivered episodic future thinking tool to promote attention to long-term health goals. We hypothesize that smoking abstinence rates will be higher with the addition of each intervention when compared with arm 1. We will enroll 3,200 adults with LCS orders at four U.S. health systems. Eligible patients include those who smoke at least one cigarette daily and self-identify as a member of an underserved group (i.e., is Black or Latinx, is a rural resident, completed a high school education or less, and/or has a household income <200% of the federal poverty line). The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence sustained through 6 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence sustained through 12 months, other smoking-related clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial will identify the most effective smoking cessation strategies that LCS programs can implement to reduce smoking burdens affecting underserved populations. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04798664). Date of registration: March 12, 2021. Date of trial launch: May 17, 2021.
Tobacco Cessation Interventions in Non-Respiratory Cancers: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Trupti Dhumal,Kimberly M Kelly,Safalta Khadka,George A Kelley,Khalid M Kamal,Virginia G Scott,Thomas F Hogan,Felicity W K Harper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaae040

2024-07-10

Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background Considering the high rates of persistent tobacco use, effective cessation interventions are needed for cancer patients and caregivers. Despite the need, there is a significant lack of research on tobacco cessation, especially for non-respiratory cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and bladder cancer). Purpose The objective was to evaluate tobacco use and tobacco cessation interventions among patients and caregivers for non-respiratory cancers. Methods Randomized controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions were identified. Five electronic databases were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines through July 2023. Studies exclusive to lung, oral, thoracic, and head and neck cancers were excluded. Effect sizes were estimated; risk of bias was assessed. Results Of 3,304 studies, 17 were included. Interventions included behavioral (n = 6), pharmacotherapy (n = 2), and a combination (n = 9) treatment. Eight studies included a health behavior model; mean behavioral change techniques were 5.57. Pooled magnitude of the odds of cessation was positive and significant (odds ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [Lower Limit 1.02, Upper Limit 1.51]) relative to usual care/placebo. Cumulative meta-analysis examined the accumulation of results over-time and demonstrated that studies have been significant since 2020. Two studies included caregivers’ who were involved in the provision of social support. Conclusions Current interventions have the potential to reduce tobacco use in non-respiratory cancers. Results may be beneficial for promoting tobacco cessation among non-respiratory cancers. There is a considerable lack of dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers; researchers are encouraged to explore dyadic approaches.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Abstract A122: Development and pilot testing of an EHR-based provider-level intervention to promote equity in lung cancer screening

Randi M. Williams,Julia Whealan,Joseph Blumenthal,Kristie Foley,Kathryn L. Taylor,Lucile Adams-Campbell,Kristen E. Miller,Rachelle Barnes,William F. DuBoyce,Heather Kratz,Kenneth W. Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-a122

2023-01-10

Abstract:Introduction: Black/African Americans (AA) have the highest lung cancer incidence and mortality compared to other racial and ethnic groups; however, provider-initiated discussions with eligible patients about lung cancer screening (LCS) are low overall, and AA and other minority individuals are less likely than Whites to have these discussions. To target lack of provider-initiated discussion about lung screening, we describe the development and feasibility of a provider-level prompt for a planned multilevel intervention to promote equitable uptake of LCS. Methods: We used an iterative process to refine a provider prompt delivered in the Electronic Health Record (EHR; Cerner Health). First, we conducted surveys with MedStar Health primary care providers (N=22) to examine existing system tools for identifying screen-eligible patients, design-related provider preferences (e.g., content, format), and delivery and usefulness of the prompt (e.g., timing, likelihood of prompting LCS discussion). Next, we completed shadowing (N=11 visits) to observe the primary care clinic workflow. We conducted usability testing (N=7) to finalize the prompt. We partnered with a MedStar Primary Care Clinic (Mitchellville, MD) to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the prompt over a 6 month period. Utilizing an automated report to identify patients (50-80 years with a smoking history) with an upcoming visit, we sent the prompt to providers prior to the visits to notify them of the patient's possible eligibility and encourage discussion of the test. Results: Of the providers who completed the survey, the majority were attending physicians (81.8%). Providers were shown a mock-up and 95% reported it was enough information to prompt them to have a discussion with their patients. Most (86.4%) said the optimal time to receive the prompt would be within 24 hours of the visit. During the usability testing, providers were given two formats and patient scenarios and they identified content that should be removed (e.g., screenshots of how to place the order, repeated hyperlinks). Most preferred the patient smoking history presented in a tabular format and liked the addition of color for visual appeal. In the 12-month period pre-intervention, the pilot clinic patient population (N=1223) were majority AA (91%) and over 90% were missing complete pack-year data (required for LCS eligibility). During the pilot period, 64% of records were eligible for the provider prompt and 45% of patients' pack-year data were updated post-appointment. Conclusions: These findings describe a promising provider-level intervention to identify patients and prompt provider-initiated discussion about smoking history and LCS. As a next step, we will evaluate the impact of the prompt on LCS orders. We will also pilot a patient-level intervention to improve provider-patient communication about screening. We intend to look at the effect of these combined interventions on LCS behaviors among AA and White patients. Citation Format: Randi M. Williams, Julia Whealan, Joseph Blumenthal, Kristie Foley, Kathryn L. Taylor, Lucile Adams-Campbell, Kristen E. Miller, Rachelle Barnes, William F. DuBoyce, Heather Kratz, Kenneth W. Lin. Development and pilot testing of an EHR-based provider-level intervention to promote equity in lung cancer screening [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl) nr A122.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Tobacco Use Assessment and Treatment in Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review of Oncology Care Clinician Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines in the U.S.

Sarah N. Price,Jamie L. Studts,Heidi A. Hamann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0246

2018-11-16

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Background Smoking after a cancer diagnosis negatively impacts health outcomes; smoking cessation improves symptoms, side effects, and overall prognosis. The Public Health Service and major oncology organizations have established guidelines for tobacco use treatment among cancer patients, including clinician assessment of tobacco use at each visit. Oncology care clinicians (OCCs) play important roles in this process (noted as the 5As: Asking about tobacco use, Advising users to quit, Assessing willingness to quit, Assisting in quit attempts, and Arranging follow-up contact). However, OCCs may not be using the “teachable moments” related to cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship to provide cessation interventions. Materials and Methods In this scoping literature review of articles from 2006 to 2017, we discuss (1) frequency and quality of OCCs' tobacco use assessments with cancer patients and survivors; (2) barriers to providing tobacco treatment for cancer patients; and (3) the efficacy and future of provider-level interventions to facilitate adherence to tobacco treatment guidelines. Results OCCs are not adequately addressing smoking cessation with their patients. The reviewed studies indicate that although >75% assess tobacco use during an intake visit and >60% typically advise patients to quit, a substantially lower percentage recommend or arrange smoking cessation treatment or follow-up after a quit attempt. Less than 30% of OCCs report adequate training in cessation interventions. Conclusion Intervention trials focused on provider- and system-level change are needed to promote integration of evidence-based tobacco treatment into the oncology setting. Attention should be given to the barriers faced by OCCs when targeting interventions for the oncologic context. Implications for Practice This article reviews the existing literature on the gap between best and current practices for tobacco use assessment and treatment in the oncologic context. It also identifies clinician- and system-level barriers that should be addressed in order to lessen this gap and provides suggestions that could be applied across different oncology practice settings to connect patients with tobacco use treatments that may improve overall survival and quality of life.

Universal Tobacco Screening and Opt-Out Treatment Referral Strategy

Tobacco Dependence Treatment in Oncology: Initial Patient Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Multilevel approaches to address disparities in lung cancer screening: a study protocol

Implementation, enrollment, and engagement in an opt‐out telehealth pharmacist‐assisted tobacco treatment program for patients seen in oncology outpatient clinics

Effect of a Personalized Tobacco Treatment Intervention on Smoking Abstinence in Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening

Tobacco treatment in the setting of lung cancer screening

Referral Strategies to a Tobacco Quitline and Racial and/or Ethnic Differences in Participation.

Equitable implementation of lung cancer screening: avoiding its potential to mirror existing inequities among people who use tobacco

Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Testing Behavioral Economic Implementation Strategies to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Patients With Cancer Who Smoke

Evaluating chronic disease approaches to ameliorate tobacco-related health disparities: Study protocol of a hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial

Treating Tobacco Dependence at the Intersection of Diversity, Poverty, and Mental Illness: A Randomized Feasibility and Replication Trial

Achieving Equitable Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in a Texas Safety Net Health System

Implementing Lung Cancer Screening and Prevention in Academic Centers, Affiliated Network Offices and Collaborating Care Sites

Sustainability of an Opt-Out Electronic-Health Record-based Tobacco Treatment Consult Service at a large safety-net hospital: A 6-year Analysis

A multi-level system quality improvement project to reduce disparities in lung cancer screening: The Sylvester Lung Screening Project.

Promoting Community Awareness of Lung Cancer Screening Among Disparate Populations: Results of the cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education Project.

Abstract A095: Differences in providers' perceived preparedness and actual delivery of screening and intervention practices for patients who smoke cigarettes between two types of healthcare centers serving rural and/or medically underserved areas of Texas

Comparing Smoking Cessation Interventions among Underserved Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol

Tobacco Cessation Interventions in Non-Respiratory Cancers: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract A122: Development and pilot testing of an EHR-based provider-level intervention to promote equity in lung cancer screening

Tobacco Use Assessment and Treatment in Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review of Oncology Care Clinician Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines in the U.S.