1
|
Choe YR, Choi JW, Jeong JR, Doh HM, Kim ML, Nam MS, Kho HJ, Park HY, Ahn HR, Kweon SS, Kim YI, Oh IJ. Effective Timing of Introducing an Inpatient Smoking Cessation Program to Cancer Patients. Yonsei Med J 2023; 64:251-258. [PMID: 36996896 PMCID: PMC10067796 DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2022.0499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2022] [Revised: 01/22/2023] [Accepted: 01/26/2023] [Indexed: 04/01/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We aimed to identify factors influencing smoking cessation success among cancer patients registered in an inpatient smoking cessation program at a single cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS The electronic medical records of enrolled patients with solid cancer were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated factors associated with 6-month smoking cessation. RESULTS A total of 458 patients with cancer were included in this study. Their mean age was 62.9±10.3 years, and 56.3% of the participants had lung cancer. 193 (42.1%) had not yet begun their main treatment. The mean number of counseling sessions for the participants was 8.4±3.5, and 46 (10.0%) patients were prescribed smoking cessation medications. The 6-month smoking cessation success rate was 48.0%. Multivariate analysis showed that younger age (<65 years), cohabited status, early stage, and the number of counseling sessions were statistically significant factors affecting 6-month smoking cessation success (p<0.05). Initiation of a cessation program before cancer treatment was significantly associated with cessation success (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.70; p=0.040). CONCLUSION Smoking cessation intervention must be considered when establishing a treatment plan immediately after a cancer diagnosis among smokers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Ri Choe
- Department of Family Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
- Chonnam Tobacco Control Center, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
- Department of Family Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Ji-Won Choi
- Department of Family Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Ju-Ri Jeong
- Department of Family Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Hye-Mi Doh
- Department of Family Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Mi-Lee Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Min-Seol Nam
- Chonnam Tobacco Control Center, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Hee-Ji Kho
- Lung and Esophageal Cancer Clinic, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Ha-Young Park
- Chonnam Tobacco Control Center, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Hye-Ran Ahn
- Chonnam Tobacco Control Center, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
- Department of Nursing, Nambu University, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Sun-Seog Kweon
- Chonnam Tobacco Control Center, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - Yu-Il Kim
- Chonnam Tobacco Control Center, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
| | - In-Jae Oh
- Chonnam Tobacco Control Center, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
- Lung and Esophageal Cancer Clinic, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
DiGiacomo M, Simoes dos Santos P, Furestad E, Hearnshaw G, Nichols S, Chang S, Scott N. Cancer care clinicians' provision of smoking cessation support: A mixed methods study in New South Wales, Australia. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2022; 18:723-734. [PMID: 35362249 PMCID: PMC9790659 DOI: 10.1111/ajco.13769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2021] [Accepted: 01/31/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Given the importance of supporting cancer patients to quit smoking, we sought to ascertain cancer care clinicians' beliefs and practices regarding providing smoking cessation brief interventions. METHODS We used a cross-sectional sequential explanatory mixed method design, including a survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians and semistructured interviews. RESULTS One hundred and sixty-five cancer care clinicians completed the survey and 21 participated in interviews. Over half of survey respondents (53%) said they do not regularly undertake smoking cessation brief interventions and 40% rarely or never advise quitting. Nonmetropolitan clinicians were more likely to discuss medication options and refer to the Quitline. Physicians were more likely to do brief interventions with patients and radiation therapists were least likely. Barriers were lack of training and experience, lack of knowledge of the Quitline referral process, lack of role clarity, lack of resources and systems, and perceived psychological ramifications of cancer for patients. CONCLUSION There is a need to upskill cancer clinicians and improve systems to provide smoking cessation brief interventions as part of routine clinical practice. All cancer care clinicians should complete brief intervention smoking cessation training relevant to the cancer context, including making referrals to Quitline, and be supported by systems to record and follow-up care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle DiGiacomo
- Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), Faculty of HealthUniversity of Technology Sydney (UTS)BroadwayNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Paula Simoes dos Santos
- Institute for Public Policy and Governance (IPPG)University of Technology Sydney (UTS)BroadwayNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Erin Furestad
- Cancer Institute New South WalesAlexandriaNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Gemma Hearnshaw
- Cancer Institute New South WalesAlexandriaNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Shirlee Nichols
- Cancer Institute New South WalesAlexandriaNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Sungwon Chang
- Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), Faculty of HealthUniversity of Technology Sydney (UTS)BroadwayNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Nicola Scott
- Cancer Institute New South WalesAlexandriaNew South WalesAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Palmer AM, Rojewski AM, Nahhas GJ, Michael Cummings K, Warren GW, Toll BA. Associations between cancer diagnosis and patients' responses to an inpatient tobacco treatment intervention. Cancer Med 2021; 10:5329-5337. [PMID: 34197693 PMCID: PMC8335828 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2021] [Revised: 05/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diagnosis of a chronic illness, such as cancer may influence health behavior changes, such as smoking cessation. The present analyses examine associations between a cancer diagnosis (i.e., yes or no) and response to an opt-out smoking cessation bedside intervention provided to hospitalized patients. It was hypothesized that patients with a past or present cancer diagnosis would report higher motivation and engagement with quitting smoking, and higher rates of smoking abstinence after hospital discharge, compared to those without a cancer diagnosis. METHODS Chart review was conducted on 5287 inpatients who accepted bedside treatment from a counselor and opted-in to automated follow-up calls from July 2014 to December 2019. RESULTS At the time of inpatient assessment, those with a past or present cancer diagnosis (n = 419, 7.9%) endorsed significantly higher levels of importance of quitting than those without a cancer diagnosis (3.92/5 vs. 3.77/5), and were more likely to receive smoking cessation medication upon discharge (17.9% vs. 13.3%). Follow-up data from 30-days post-discharge showed those with a cancer diagnosis endorsed higher rates of self-reported abstinence (20.5%) than those without a cancer diagnosis (10.3%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Being hospitalized for any reason provides an opportunity for smokers to consider quitting. Having a previous diagnosis of cancer appears to increase intention to quit and lead to higher rates of smoking cessation in patients who are hospitalized compared to patients without cancer. Future research needs to work toward optimizing motivation for smoking cessation while admitted to a hospital and on improving quit rates for all admitted patients, regardless of diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda M Palmer
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.,Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Sleep Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Alana M Rojewski
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.,Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Georges J Nahhas
- Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.,Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - K Michael Cummings
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Graham W Warren
- Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Benjamin A Toll
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.,Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Taborelli M, Dal Maso L, Zucchetto A, Lamaj E, De Paoli P, Carbone A, Serraino D. Prevalence and determinants of quitting smoking after cancer diagnosis: a prospective cohort study. TUMORI JOURNAL 2021; 108:213-222. [PMID: 33876985 DOI: 10.1177/03008916211009301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe smoking behaviours of patients with incident cancer attending an Italian cancer centre and to examine changes in their smoking habits within 12 months from cancer diagnosis, evaluating determinants of smoking cessation. METHODS A hospital-based prospective cohort included patients hospitalized in an Italian cancer centre (2016-2018). Patients were mostly female (74%) and included a limited proportion of aerodigestive cancers (7%). Face-to-face interviews were performed during hospital stay to gather information on patient characteristics and smoking history. Changes in smoking habits were assessed through telephone interviews at 3, at 6, and at 12 months after cancer diagnosis. RESULTS Among 1011 enrolled patients, 222 (22%) were current smokers at cancer diagnosis. Smoking prevalence was high in male patients (30%), in patients <50 years old (28%), in those with aerodigestive cancers (50%), and in those diagnosed at advanced stages (26%). Among current smokers at cancer diagnosis, 38% quit smoking after 12 months, 26% reduced intensity, and 36% did not modify smoking habits. Smoking cessation was associated with chemotherapy and, although not statistically significant, with female sex, older age, and advanced cancer stage. Patients with gastrointestinal, breast, or genitourinary cancer and those treated with surgery were less likely to quit smoking. CONCLUSIONS Our results highlighted that 62% of smoking patients with cancer did not quit the habit. Smoking cessation programs targeted to patients with cancer need intensification, particularly for those who may underestimate smoking effects after diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martina Taborelli
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Luigino Dal Maso
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Antonella Zucchetto
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Elda Lamaj
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | | | - Antonino Carbone
- Scientific Directorate, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| | - Diego Serraino
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
The characteristics of patients who quit smoking in the year following a cancer diagnosis. J Cancer Surviv 2021; 16:111-118. [PMID: 33641030 PMCID: PMC10117081 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-021-01009-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2020] [Accepted: 02/17/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Continued tobacco smoking following a cancer diagnosis is associated with adverse outcomes. Our study aims to identify the demographic and clinical characteristics of survivors who quit smoking within a year of diagnosis. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of the Measuring Your Health (MY-Health) study, a community-based survey cohort of 5506 cancer patients registered across four Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries. Using surveys completed 6-13 months after diagnosis, we identified 868 participants who reported smoking around the time of cancer diagnosis and compared their current smoking status. We employed logistic regression models to predict current smoking status, adjusting for clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS The overall smoking cessation rate was 35% (n = 306). Survivors with non-small cell lung cancer were three times more likely to quit smoking compared to patients with non-smoking-related cancers (aOR = 3.23, 95% CI = 2.20-4.74). Participants with advanced stage cancer reported higher odds of quitting compared to those with localized cancer (aOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.02-1.96). Other characteristics that predicted quitting included being married, higher education level, and female sex (aOR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.46-2.77; aOR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.27-2.39; aOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.11-2.13, respectively). CONCLUSIONS This is one of the first studies to examine smoking cessation trends in a community-based, US cancer cohort during the year after diagnosis. Survivors with lung cancer and advanced cancer were significantly more likely to quit smoking. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Practitioners may use this knowledge to target interventions and address substantial disparities in cessation rates among survivors with early stage and non-lung cancers.
Collapse
|
6
|
Yusufov M, Braun IM, Pirl WF. A systematic review of substance use and substance use disorders in patients with cancer. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2019; 60:128-136. [PMID: 31104826 DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2019.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2018] [Revised: 04/23/2019] [Accepted: 04/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Few studies examined substance use in cancer patients. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize this evidence, identify methodological limitations, and provide future research directions. METHOD Articles on substance use in cancer (focused on illicit substance, opioid, and alcohol use) were searched in Medline, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES. RESULTS On the basis of inclusion criteria, 28 studies were reviewed. Twenty-one contained empiric data from 500,123 participants; seven were review or conceptual papers. All studies were published between 1995 and 2018. Quality assessment revealed relatively low risk of bias and high methodological quality. Five studies examined substance use or substance use disorder (SUD) broadly. Mean ages ranged from 17.6 to 74.7 years. Substance use rates ranged from 2% to 35%, with a median opioid rate of 18% and 25.5% for alcohol. Nine of the studies had samples comprised either mostly or exclusively of advanced cancer patients. Disease groups included breast, head & neck, and gastric cancer. None of the studies used a theoretical framework or model. CONCLUSIONS Given the prevalence of substance use in cancer patients, interventions are needed. Further theory-grounded studies are warranted to foster the translation of research into clinical practice and elucidate substance use management recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miryam Yusufov
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215, United States; Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
| | - Ilana M Braun
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215, United States; Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, MA 02115, United States
| | - William F Pirl
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215, United States; Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, MA 02115, United States
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis: a longitudinal study of intentions and attempts to quit. J Cancer Surviv 2019; 13:687-694. [PMID: 31332721 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-019-00787-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2019] [Accepted: 07/04/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis is associated with poor treatment outcomes and reduced life expectancy. We aimed to identify the stability of smoking status after diagnosis including quit attempts and quit intentions. METHODS Participants with a first primary cancer diagnosis were recruited via two state-based registries in Australia. Questionnaires were mailed at approximately 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2), 2 years (T3), and 3.5 years (T4) post-diagnosis. Smoking status and quitting intentions were assessed at each time point. RESULTS A cohort of 1444 people was recruited. People who indicated that they were more than 9 months post-diagnosis are excluded from analysis, leaving 1407 eligible study participants. Sixty-six (37%) of the 178 self-reported smokers at diagnosis had quit in the 6-month post-diagnosis (T1), the remaining 112 (63%) reported being a current smoker. Of the smokers at T1, 40% intended to quit: with 8% having quit smoking by T2; 11% quit by T3; 12% quit by T4. Of those who reported at T1 that they intended to quit in the next 6 months, 10% or fewer reported having quit at any subsequent time point. Quitting attempts decreased in frequency over time post-diagnosis. Less than 15% of respondents who had quit at or shortly before diagnosis reported relapse to smoking at each time point. CONCLUSIONS The majority of smokers diagnosed with cancer continue to smoke beyond diagnosis, even in the context of an intention to quit and attempts to do so. Cancer survivors who smoke remain motivated to quit well beyond the initial diagnosis. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS There are clear positive clinical effects of smoking cessation for those who have undergone treatment for cancer, both for short-term treatment outcomes, and for long-term survivorship. Given the substantial rates of continued smoking among those who report smoking at diagnosis and their continued attempts to quit during survivorship, there is a need for improved cessation support initiatives for people diagnosed with cancer. These initiatives need to continue to be offered to smokers long after the initial diagnosis and treatment.
Collapse
|
8
|
Koo HY, Lee K, Park SM, Chang J, Kim K, Choi S, Cho MH, Jun J, Kim SM. Prevalence and Predictors of Sustained Smoking after a Cancer Diagnosis in Korean Men. Cancer Res Treat 2019; 52:139-148. [PMID: 31291717 PMCID: PMC6962473 DOI: 10.4143/crt.2018.609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2018] [Accepted: 06/20/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Although smoking has a significant impact on mortality and morbidity of cancer patients, many patients continue to smoke post-diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to investigate prevalence and predictors of sustained smoking among male cancer survivors. Materials and Methods The Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Screening Cohort database was used for this population-based, retrospective study. Study subjects were 15,141 men who were diagnosed with their first incident cancer between 2004 and 2011. Changes in smoking status before and after a cancer diagnosis were investigated. For patients who were current smokers pre-diagnosis, association between post-diagnosis sustained smoking and demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical variables were examined. Results Of the 4,657 pre-diagnosis smokers, 2,255 (48%) had quit after cancer diagnosis, while 2,402 (51.6%) continued to smoke. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, younger age at cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 to 1.55; p < 0.001), low socioeconomic status (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.45; p ≤ 0.001), pre-diagnosis heavy smoking (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.41; p=0.001), diagnosis of non-smoking–related cancer (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.96; p < 0.001), and high serum glucose level (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.46; p=0.019) were associated with sustained smoking after a cancer diagnosis. Conclusion Almost half of the male smokers continue to smoke after a cancer diagnosis. Targeted interventions for smoking cessation should be considered for patients with younger age, low socioeconomic status, heavy smoking history, non-smoking–related cancer, and high blood glucose levels.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hye Yeon Koo
- Health Promotion Center, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea
| | - Kiheon Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.,Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang Min Park
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jooyoung Chang
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyuwoong Kim
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seulggie Choi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Korea
| | - Mi Hee Cho
- Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Samsung C&T Corporation Medical Clinic, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jihye Jun
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Sung Min Kim
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Martínez Ú, Brandon TH, Sutton SK, Simmons VN. Associations between the smoking-relatedness of a cancer type, cessation attitudes and beliefs, and future abstinence among recent quitters. Psychooncology 2018; 27:2104-2110. [PMID: 29785718 DOI: 10.1002/pon.4774] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2017] [Revised: 04/10/2018] [Accepted: 05/14/2018] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Smoking after a diagnosis of cancer can negatively impact treatment outcomes and quality of life. It is important that patients quit smoking and remain abstinent regardless of cancer type. Some cancer types (eg, lung) have stronger links to smoking as a cause than do others (eg, colorectal). The aims of this study were to (1) assess associations between smoking-relatedness of the cancer type with beliefs and attitudes concerning smoking abstinence (eg, confidence, self-efficacy), and (2) assess these variables as predictors of future abstinence. METHODS In this secondary analysis, cancer patients (N = 357) who quit smoking within the previous 90 days were assigned a code of 3, 2, or 1 according to the cancer type's level of smoking-relatedness: Very related (n = 134, thoracic and head and neck), Somewhat related (n = 93, acute myeloid leukemia, bladder, cervix, colorectal, esophageal, kidney, liver, pancreas, and stomach), and Unlikely related (n = 137, all other cancer types). RESULTS Smoking-relatedness was positively associated with plan to stay smoke-free, maximum confidence in being smoke-free in 6 months, higher abstinence self-efficacy, and lower expected difficulty in staying smoke-free. Each of the 4 beliefs and attitude variables predicted abstinence 2 months later. Smoking-relatedness also predicted abstinence in a univariate model, but not in a multivariable model with the belief and attitude variables. Using backwards stepwise procedures, the final model included plan to stay smoke-free, confidence in being smoke-free, and abstinence self-efficacy. CONCLUSION These results are consistent with our conceptualization of cessation motivation differing by smoking-relatedness of the cancer type and predicting future abstinence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Úrsula Martínez
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Thomas H Brandon
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Steven K Sutton
- Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Vani N Simmons
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Day FL, Sherwood E, Chen TY, Barbouttis M, Varlow M, Martin J, Weber M, Sitas F, Paul C. Oncologist provision of smoking cessation support: A national survey of Australian medical and radiation oncologists. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2018; 14:431-438. [PMID: 29706029 DOI: 10.1111/ajco.12876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2017] [Accepted: 03/07/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
AIM Continued smoking in patients diagnosed with cancer affects treatment outcomes and overall survival. With national surveys of Australian medical oncologists (MO) and radiation oncologists (RO) we sought to determine current clinical practices, preferences and barriers in providing patient smoking cessation support. METHODS Oncologist members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (n = 452) and Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (n = 230) were invited to participate in a multiple choice survey exploring smoking cessation practices and beliefs. RESULTS The survey response rate was 43%. At first consultations more than 90% of MO and RO regularly asked patients if they smoke or use tobacco products, closely followed by documentation of duration of smoking history and current level of consumption. Less common was asking the patient if they intended to quit (MO 63%, RO 53%) and advising cessation (MO 70%, RO 72%). Less than 50% of oncologists regularly asked about current smoking in follow-up consultations. Although a range of referral options for smoking cessation care were used by oncologists, only 2% of MO and 3% of RO actively managed the patients' smoking cessation themselves and this was the least preferred option. The majority believed they require more training in cessation interventions (67% MO, 57% RO) and cited multiple additional barriers to providing cessation care. CONCLUSIONS Oncologists strongly prefer smoking cessation interventions to be managed by other health workers. A collaborative approach with other health professionals is needed to aid the provision of comprehensive smoking cessation care tailored to patients with cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona L Day
- Department of Medical Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia.,School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Emma Sherwood
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.,Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
| | - Tina Y Chen
- Cancer Institute NSW, Eveleigh, NSW, Australia
| | | | | | - Jarad Martin
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia
| | - Marianne Weber
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia.,School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
| | - Freddy Sitas
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.,School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of NSW, Kensington, NSW, Australia
| | - Christine Paul
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.,Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research, Innovation and Translation, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Mujcic A, Blankers M, Boon B, Engels R, van Laar M. Internet-based self-help smoking cessation and alcohol moderation interventions for cancer survivors: a study protocol of two RCTs. BMC Cancer 2018; 18:364. [PMID: 29609554 PMCID: PMC5879805 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4206-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2017] [Accepted: 03/09/2018] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Brief interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation may contribute considerably to the prevention of cancer among populations at risk, such as cancer survivors, in addition to improving their general wellbeing. There is accumulating evidence for the effectiveness of internet-based brief health behaviour interventions. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness, patient-level cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of two new online theory-based self-help interventions among adult cancer survivors in the Netherlands. One of the interventions focuses on alcohol moderation, the other on smoking cessation. Both interventions are tailored to cancer survivors. Methods Effectiveness will be assessed in two separate, nearly identical 2-armed RCTs: alcohol moderation (AM RCT) and smoking cessation (SC RCT). Participants are randomly allocated to either the intervention groups or the control groups. In the intervention groups, participants have access to one of the newly developed interventions. In the control groups, participants receive an online static information brochure on alcohol (AM RCT) or smoking (SC RCT). Main study outcome parameters are the number of drinks post-randomisation (AM RCT) and tobacco abstinence (SC RCT). In addition, cost-data and possible effect moderators and mediators will be assessed. Both treatments are internet-based minimally guided self-help interventions: MyCourse – Moderate Drinking (in Dutch: MijnKoers – Minderen met Drinken) and MyCourse – Quit Smoking (MijnKoers – Stoppen met Roken). They are based on cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), motivational interviewing (MI) and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Both interventions are optimized in collaboration with the target population of cancer survivors in focus groups and interviews, and in collaboration with several experts on eHealth, smoking cessation, alcohol misuse and cancer survivorship. Discussion The present study will add to scientific knowledge on the (cost-)effectiveness of internet-based self-help interventions to aid in smoking cessation or alcohol moderation, working mechanisms and impact on quality of life of cancer survivors. If found effective, these interventions can contribute to providing evidence-based psychosocial oncology care to a growing population of cancer survivors. Trial registration Trials are prospectively registered in The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR6011 (SC RCT), NTR6010 (AM RCT) on 1 September 2016.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ajla Mujcic
- Trimbos-institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521, VS, Utrecht, The Netherlands. .,Utrecht University, Domplein 29, 3512, JE, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Matthijs Blankers
- Trimbos-institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521, VS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Arkin Mental Health Care, Klaprozenweg 111, 1033, NN, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Academic Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Brigitte Boon
- Academy het Dorp & Siza, Kemperbergerweg 139E, 6816, RP, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger Engels
- Trimbos-institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521, VS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Utrecht University, Domplein 29, 3512, JE, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Margriet van Laar
- Trimbos-institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521, VS, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Wells M, Aitchison P, Harris F, Ozakinci G, Radley A, Bauld L, Entwistle V, Munro A, Haw S, Culbard B, Williams B. Barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation in a cancer context: A qualitative study of patient, family and professional views. BMC Cancer 2017; 17:348. [PMID: 28526000 PMCID: PMC5438552 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3344-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2016] [Accepted: 05/11/2017] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Continued smoking after cancer adversely affects quality of life and survival, but one fifth of cancer survivors still smoke. Despite its demands, cancer presents an opportunity for positive behaviour change. Smoking often occurs in social groups, therefore interventions which target families and individuals may be more successful. This qualitative study explored patients, family members and health professionals’ views and experiences of smoking and smoking cessation after cancer, in order to inform future interventions. Methods In-depth qualitative interviews (n = 67) with 29 patients, 14 family members and 24 health professionals. Data were analysed using the ‘Framework’ method. Results Few patients and family members had used National Health Service (NHS) smoking cessation services and more than half still smoked. Most recalled little ‘smoking-related’ discussion with clinicians but were receptive to talking openly. Clinicians revealed several barriers to discussion. Participants’ continued smoking was explained by the stress of diagnosis; desire to maintain personal control; and lack of connection between smoking, cancer and health. Conclusions A range of barriers to smoking cessation exist for patients and family members. These are insufficiently assessed and considered by clinicians. Interventions must be more effectively integrated into routine practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary Wells
- NMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Scion House, Stirling, FK9 4HN, UK.
| | - Patricia Aitchison
- NMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Scion House, Stirling, FK9 4HN, UK
| | - Fiona Harris
- NMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Scion House, Stirling, FK9 4HN, UK
| | - Gozde Ozakinci
- School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9TF, UK
| | - Andrew Radley
- NHS Tayside, Public Health Directorate, Kings Cross Hospital, Dundee, DD3 8EA, UK
| | - Linda Bauld
- Insitute of Social Marketing, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK
| | - Vikki Entwistle
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK
| | - Alastair Munro
- School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9TF, UK
| | - Sally Haw
- Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK
| | - Bill Culbard
- Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK
| | - Brian Williams
- School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, 9 Sighthill Court, Edinburgh, EH11 4BN, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Sharp L, McDevitt J, Brown C, Comber H. Smoking at diagnosis significantly decreases 5-year cancer-specific survival in a population-based cohort of 18 166 colon cancer patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017; 45:788-800. [PMID: 28176335 DOI: 10.1111/apt.13944] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2016] [Revised: 06/15/2016] [Accepted: 12/26/2016] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accumulating evidence suggests smoking may adversely affect cancer patients' outcomes. Previous studies of smoking and survival in colon cancer have been limited by size and/or lack of a population basis and results have been inconsistent. AIM To investigate in a large population-based cohort whether smoking status at diagnosis is an independent prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival in colon cancer and whether treatment modifies any impact of smoking. METHODS Colon adenocarcinomas diagnosed between 1994 and 2012 were abstracted from the National Cancer Registry Ireland, and classified by smoking status at diagnosis. Cancer-specific death rates over 5 years were compared in current, ex- and never smokers using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and subgroup analyses by treatment (combinations of cancer-directed surgery and chemotherapy) were conducted. RESULTS Of 18 166 colon cancers, 20% of patients were current smokers, 23% ex-smokers and 57% never smokers. Compared to never smokers, current smokers had a significantly raised cancer death rate [multivariable hazard ratio (HR) = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07-1.12]. There was a significant interaction between treatment and smoking (P = 0.03). In those who had cancer-directed surgery only, but not other groups, current smokers had a significantly increased cancer death rate compared to never smokers (HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.09-1.34). CONCLUSIONS Smoking at diagnosis is an independent prognostic factor for colon cancer. The limitation of the association to surgically-treated patients suggests that the underlying mechanism(s) may be related to surgery. While further research is needed to elucidate mechanisms, continued efforts to encourage smoking prevention and cessation may yield benefits in terms of improved survival from colon cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Sharp
- Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - J McDevitt
- National Cancer Registry Ireland, Cork, Ireland
| | - C Brown
- National Cancer Registry Ireland, Cork, Ireland
| | - H Comber
- National Cancer Registry Ireland, Cork, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Chang EHE, Braith A, Hitsman B, Schnoll RA. Treating Nicotine Dependence and Preventing Smoking Relapse in Cancer Patients. EXPERT REVIEW OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN CANCER CARE 2016; 2:23-39. [PMID: 28808692 PMCID: PMC5553981 DOI: 10.1080/23809000.2017.1271981] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Despite the well-documented harmful effects of smoking, many cancer patients continue to smoke. Smoking cessation is critical to address in this population given the associated increase in treatment toxicity, risk of second primary tumors, decrease in treatment response and higher disease-specific and all-cause mortality with continued smoking following a cancer diagnosis. This review seeks to summarize the latest recommendations and guidelines on smoking cessation treatment for patients diagnosed with cancer, and the evidence behind those recommendations. AREAS COVERED We reviewed the latest evidence for smoking cessation treatments for cancer patients and the clinical guidelines and recommendation available for oncologists and health care providers. The unique aspects of nicotine dependence among patients diagnosed with cancer, and key challenges and barriers that cancer survivors and health care providers experience when considering smoking cessation treatments, and available clinical resources, are also discussed. Lastly, the authors summarize future directions in the field of smoking cessation treatment for cancer patients. EXPERT COMMENTARY While there are areas of improvement in research of smoking cessation treatment for cancer patients, critical under-explored areas remain. Nonetheless, providers should adhere to the NCCN guidelines and offer a brief counseling intervention to motivate patients to quit smoking when appropriate resources are not available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun Hae Estelle Chang
- Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 981225 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-1225, Phone 402-559-8007 Fax 402-559-8490
| | - Andrew Braith
- College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 42 Street and Emile Street, Omaha, NE 68198
| | - Brian Hitsman
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine & Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, 680 N Lake Shore Drive, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone 312-503-2074
| | - Robert A Schnoll
- Department of Psychiatry and Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, 4 Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Phone 215-746-7143 Fax 215-746-7140
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Park ER, Ostroff JS, Perez GK, Hyland KA, Rigotti NA, Borderud S, Regan S, Muzikansky A, Friedman ER, Levy DE, Holland S, Eusebio J, Peterson L, Rabin J, Miller-Sobel J, Gonzalez I, Malloy L, O'Brien M, de León-Sanchez S, Whitlock CW. Integrating tobacco treatment into cancer care: Study protocol for a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. Contemp Clin Trials 2016; 50:54-65. [PMID: 27444428 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2016.07.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2016] [Revised: 07/14/2016] [Accepted: 07/17/2016] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the well-established risks of persistent smoking, 10-30% of cancer patients continue to smoke after diagnosis. Evidence-based tobacco treatment has yet to be integrated into routine oncology care. This paper describes the protocol, manualized treatment, evaluation plan, and overall study design of comparing the effectiveness and cost of two treatments across two major cancer centers. METHODS/DESIGN A two-arm, two-site randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial is testing the hypothesis that an Intensive Treatment (IT) intervention is more effective than a Standard Treatment (ST) intervention in helping recently diagnosed cancer patients quit smoking. Both interventions include 4 weekly counseling sessions and FDA-approved smoking cessation medication advice. The IT includes an additional 4 biweekly and 3 monthly booster sessions as well as dispensal of the recommended FDA-approved smoking cessation medication at no cost. The trial is enrolling patients with suspected or newly diagnosed cancer who have smoked a cigarette in the past 30days. Participants are randomly assigned to receive the ST or IT condition. Tobacco cessation outcomes are assessed at 3 and 6months. The primary study outcome is 7-day point prevalence biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence. Secondary study outcomes include the incremental cost-effectiveness of the IT vs. ST. DISCUSSION This trial will answer key questions about delivering tobacco treatment interventions to newly diagnosed cancer patients. If found to be efficacious and cost-effective, this treatment will serve as a model to be integrated into oncology care settings nation-wide, as we strive to improve treatment outcomes and quality of life for cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elyse R Park
- Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Cancer Outcomes Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Jamie S Ostroff
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Tobacco Treatment Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
| | - Giselle K Perez
- Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Cancer Outcomes Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Kelly A Hyland
- H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Sarah Borderud
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Tobacco Treatment Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
| | - Susan Regan
- Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Alona Muzikansky
- Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Emily R Friedman
- Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Cancer Outcomes Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Douglas E Levy
- Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Susan Holland
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Tobacco Treatment Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
| | - Justin Eusebio
- Cancer Outcomes Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Lisa Peterson
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Tobacco Treatment Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
| | - Julia Rabin
- Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Cancer Outcomes Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Jacob Miller-Sobel
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Tobacco Treatment Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
| | - Irina Gonzalez
- Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Laura Malloy
- Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Maureen O'Brien
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Tobacco Treatment Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
| | - Suhana de León-Sanchez
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Tobacco Treatment Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
| | - C Will Whitlock
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Tobacco Treatment Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
| |
Collapse
|