Design, implementation, and evaluation of an intervention to improve referral to smoking cessation services in breast cancer patients

Stakeholder perceptions of using "opt-out" for tobacco use treatment in a cancer care setting: a qualitative evaluation of patients, providers, and desk staff

BACKGROUND

Continued tobacco use in cancer patients increases the risk of cancer treatment failure and decreases survival. However, currently, most cancer patients do not receive evidence-based tobacco treatment. A recently proposed "opt-out" approach would automatically refer all cancer patients who use tobacco to tobacco treatment, but its acceptability to cancer patients and providers is unknown. We aimed to understand stakeholder beliefs, concerns, and receptivity to using the "opt-out" approach for tobacco treatment referrals in a cancer care setting.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with oncology patients, providers, and desk staff. The sample size was determined when theoretical saturation was reached. Given the differences among participant roles, separate interview guides were developed. Transcripts were analyzed using standard coding techniques for qualitative data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook. Emergent codes were added to the codebook to account for themes not represented by a CFIR domain. Coded transcripts were then entered into the qualitative analysis software NVivo to generate code reports for CFIR domains and emergent codes for each stakeholder group. Data were presented by stakeholder group and subcategorized by CFIR domains and emergent codes when appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 21 providers, 19 patients, and 6 desk staff were interviewed. Overall acceptance of the "opt out" approach was high among all groups. Providers overwhelmingly approved of the approach as it requires little effort from them to operate and saves clinical time. Desk staff supported the opt-out system and believed there are clinical benefits to patients receiving information about tobacco treatment. Many patients expressed support for using an opt-out approach as many smokers need assistance but may not directly ask for it. Patients also thought that providers emphasizing the benefits of stopping tobacco use to cancer treatment and survival would be an important factor motivating them to attend treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While providers appreciated that the system required little effort on their part, patients clearly indicated that promotion of tobacco cessation treatment by their provider would be vital to enhance willingness to engage with treatment. Future implementation efforts of opt-out systems will require implementation strategies that promote provider engagement with their patients around smoking cessation while continuing to limit burden on providers.

Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Smokers Diagnosed with Cancer

The detrimental impact of smoking on health and wellbeing are irrefutable. Additionally, smoking is associated with the development of cancer, a reduction treatment outcomes and poorer health outcomes. Nevertheless, a significant number of people continue to smoke following a cancer diagnosis. Little is understood of the smoking cessation services provided to smokers with cancer or their engagement with them. This systematic review aimed to identify existing smoking cessation interventions for this cohort diagnosed with breast, head and neck, lung and cervical cancers (linked to risk). Systematic searches of Pubmed, Embase, Psych Info and CINAHL from 1 January 2015 to 15 December 2020 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of smoking cessation interventions and impact on referrals and quit attempts. The impact on healthcare professionals was included if reported. Included studies were restricted to adults with a cancer diagnosis and published in English. No restriction was placed on study designs, and narrative data synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity. A review protocol was registered on PROSPERO CRD 42020214204, and reporting adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. Data were screened, extracted in duplicate and an assessment of the quality of evidence undertaken using Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing USA, Canada, England, Lebanon, Australia and including randomized controlled trials (9), observational studies (10), quality improvement (3), and one qualitative study. Hospital and cancer clinics [including a dental clinic] were the settings for all studies. 43% (10/23) of studies reported interventions for smokers diagnosed with head and neck cancer, 13% (3/23) for smokers diagnosed with lung cancer, one study provides evidence for breast cancer, and the remaining nine studies (39%) report on multiple cancers including the ones specified in this review. Methodological quality was variable. There were limited data to identify one optimal intervention for this cohort. Key elements included the timing and frequency of quit conversations, use of electronic records, pharmacotherapy including extended use of varenicline, increased counselling sessions and a service embedded in oncology departments. More studies are required to ensure tailored smoking cessation pathways are co-developed for smokers with a diagnosis of cancer to support this population.

Integrating Tobacco Treatment Into Oncology Care: Reach and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Across National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers

PURPOSE

Quitting smoking improves patients' clinical outcomes, yet smoking is not commonly addressed as part of cancer care. The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) supports National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to integrate tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) into routine cancer care. C3I centers vary in size, implementation strategies used, and treatment approaches. We examined associations of these contextual factors with treatment reach and smoking cessation effectiveness.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used survey data from 28 C3I centers that reported tobacco treatment data during the first 6 months of 2021. Primary outcomes of interest were treatment reach (reach)-the proportion of patients identified as currently smoking who received at least one evidence-based tobacco treatment component (eg, counseling and pharmacotherapy)-and smoking cessation effectiveness (effectiveness)-the proportion of patients reporting 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Center-level differences in reach and effectiveness were examined by center characteristics, implementation strategies, and tobacco treatment components.

RESULTS

Of the total 692,662 unique patients seen, 44,437 reported current smoking. Across centers, a median of 96% of patients were screened for tobacco use, median smoking prevalence was 7.4%, median reach was 15.4%, and median effectiveness was 18.4%. Center-level characteristics associated with higher reach included higher smoking prevalence, use of center-wide TTP, and lower patient-to-tobacco treatment specialist ratio. Higher effectiveness was observed at centers that served a larger overall population and population of patients who smoke, reported a higher smoking prevalence, and/or offered electronic health record referrals via a closed-loop system.

CONCLUSION

Whole-center TTP implementation among inpatients and outpatients, and increasing staff-to-patient ratios may improve TTP reach. Designating personnel with tobacco treatment expertise and resources to increase tobacco treatment dose or intensity may improve smoking cessation effectiveness.

Anesthesiologists and the Other Pandemic: Tobacco Use

Tobacco use will kill a projected 1 billion people in the 21st century in one of the deadliest pandemics in history. Tobacco use disorder is a disease with a natural history, pathophysiology, and effective treatment options. Anesthesiologists can play a unique role in fighting this pandemic, providing both immediate (reduction in perioperative risk) and long-term (reduction in tobacco-related diseases) benefits to their patients who are its victims. Receiving surgery is one of the most powerful stimuli to quit tobacco. Tobacco treatments that combine counseling and pharmacotherapy (e.g., nicotine replacement therapy) can further increase quit rates and reduce risk of morbidity such as pulmonary and wound-related complications. The perioperative setting provides a great opportunity to implement multimodal perianesthesia tobacco treatment, which combines multiple evidence-based tactics to implement the four core components of consistent ascertainment and documentation of tobacco use, advice to quit, access to pharmacotherapy, and referral to counseling resources.

How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.

Breast Cancer (BC) Is a Window of Opportunity for Smoking Cessation: Results of a Retrospective Analysis of 1234 BC Survivors in Follow-Up Consultation

Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed type of cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths in women. Smoking is the principal modifiable risk factor for cancers and has a negative influence on long-term survival. We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive BC survivors seen at follow-up consultations between 3 June and 30 October 2019 at Institut Curie, Paris, France. Smoking behaviors were evaluated prospectively via interviewer-administered questionnaires. The aim of this study was to describe smoking-related patient care at diagnosis and smoking cessation patterns in women with a history of BC. A total of 1234 patients were included in the study. Smoking status at diagnosis was missing from electronic health records in 32% of cases, including 13% of patients who smoke. Only 20% of the 197 patients currently smoking at diagnosis recalled having a discussion about smoking with a healthcare professional. Radiotherapists and surgeons were more likely to talk about complications than other practitioners. The main type of information provided was general advice to stop smoking (n = 110), followed by treatment complications (n = 48), while only five patients were referred to tobaccologists. Since diagnosis, 33% (n = 65) of the patients currently smoking had quit. Patients who quit had a lower alcohol consumption, but no other factor was associated with smoking cessation. The main motivation for tobacco withdrawal was the fear of BC relapse (63%). This study highlights room for improvement in the assessment of smoking behavior. Our data raise important perspectives for considering BC treatment and follow-up as a window of opportunity for smoking cessation.

Implementing a 3As and 'Opt-Out' Tobacco Cessation Framework in an Outpatient Oncology Setting

Tobacco cessation has been recognized as an important goal for all ambulatory cancer centres to provide the best possible treatment outcomes and quality of life. However, cessation interventions are applied inconsistently in this setting, with less than one-half of tobacco users being offered evidence-based interventions. The ‘opt-in’ approach traditionally used in cessation, which targets patients who feel ready to quit, may limit the number of patients who are able to receive treatment, and evidence suggests that tobacco users quit at the same rate regardless of their perceived readiness. This paper reports the results of implementing a tobacco cessation framework utilizing the 3As and an ‘opt-out’ approach as a standard of cancer care at a Regional Cancer Centre. A comparison of data from 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 demonstrated an increase in the number of patients screened for tobacco use (76.9% to 90.1%, respectively), and in the number of accepted referrals to quit support (11.5% to 34.7%, respectively). The revised framework was effective at improving referral acceptance rates, despite tobacco use rates remaining stable among the two groups. This demonstrates that employing the ‘opt-out’ approach is a more effective strategy to connect patients with the smoking cessation supports required to optimize their cancer care.

Healthy Behaviors: Prevalence of Uptake Among Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

Although most cancer survivors adhere to recommendations to refrain from tobacco and minimize alcohol use, survivors of certain cancers are not meeting these recommendations. In addition, most cancer survivors do not achieve optimal recommendations for diet and physical activity, further decreasing survivor health and quality of life. Sun protective and sleep behaviors also tend to be suboptimal among survivors. Uptake of age-appropriate vaccinations is variable among survivors.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to review the prevalence of healthy behavior uptake among cancer survivors and provide nurses with an overview of effective interventions, strategies, and resources to help patients improve these behaviors.

METHODS

An expert panel was convened to conduct an integrative review and synthesis on the state of the science of healthy behavior uptake among cancer survivors.

FINDINGS

Not meeting recommendations for healthy lifestyle behaviors increases the risk of second cancers and mortality and decreases overall health and quality of life. Healthy lifestyle behaviors can contribute to improved function, quality of life, and overall survival for cancer survivors. Nurses can help survivors to understand and improve their behaviors.

Strategies for Referring Cancer Patients in a Smoking Cessation Program

Most people who smoke and develop cancer are unable to quit smoking. To address this, many cancer centers have now opened smoking cessation programs specifically designed to help cancer patients to quit. An important question has now emerged—what is the most effective approach for engaging smokers within a cancer center in these smoking cessation programs? We report outcomes from a retrospective observational study comparing three referral methods—traditional referral, best practice advisory (BPA), and direct outreach—on utilization of the Duke Cancer Center Smoking Cessation Program. We found that program utilization rate was higher for direct outreach (5.4%) than traditional referral (0.8%), p < 0.001, and BPA (0.2%); p < 0.001. Program utilization was 6.4% for all methods combined. Inferring a causal relationship between referral method and program utilization was not possible because the study did not use a randomized design. Innovation is needed to generate higher utilization rates for cancer center smoking cessation programs.

Integration of Tobacco Treatment Services into Cancer Care at Stanford

As part of a National Cancer Institute Moonshot P30 Supplement, the Stanford Cancer Center piloted and integrated tobacco treatment into cancer care. This quality improvement (QI) project reports on the process from initial pilot to adoption within 14 clinics. The Head and Neck Oncology Clinic was engaged first in January 2019 as a pilot site given staff receptivity, elevated smoking prevalence, and a high tobacco screening rate (95%) yet low levels of tobacco cessation treatment referrals (<10%) and patient engagement (<1% of smokers treated). To improve referrals and engagement, system changes included an automated "opt-out" referral process and provision of tobacco cessation treatment as a covered benefit with flexible delivery options that included phone and telemedicine. Screening rates increased to 99%, referrals to 100%, 74% of patients were reached by counselors, and 33% of those reached engaged in treatment. Patient-reported abstinence from all tobacco products at 6-month follow-up is 20%. In July 2019, two additional oncology clinics were added. In December 2019, less than one year from initiating the QI pilot, with demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy, the tobacco treatment services were integrated into 14 clinics at Stanford Cancer Center.