Proactive recruitment of cancer patients' social networks into a smoking cessation trial

Respondent Driven Sampling Method of Recruitment for a Case Control Study of Gastric Cancer Risk

OBJECTIVE

Gastric cancer (GC) disproportionately affects ethnic minorities in the US including Asians and Pacific Islanders. Research with minority groups who are at high risk are needed to provide more effective treatment. Successful recruitment of minorities to research must overcome obstacles of language, access, fear and mistrust. Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS) is a sampling strategy designed to recruit underrepresented minority populations using social networks. However, there are no reports of RDS being used for a case-control study.

METHODS

Our pilot study examined the feasibility of using RDS as a recruitment strategy to enroll a large number of participants to develop a GC screener. Our preliminary work showed that 750 cases and 5,250 controls would be needed to fully develop this tool. GC cases, who also served as the seeds, were asked to refer 2 more people to participate as controls in our study. Our pilot goal was to recruit 8 GC cases (as seeds) and 112 controls using three waves of referrals and recruitment.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven GC cases were contacted of which 10 refused, 4 expressed interested to participate in the survey but were unwilling to recruit controls. Thirteen cases were recruited but only 5 Complete the survey. Of these 5, 3 cases did not pass on referral coupons and only 2 of the participants gave coupons to 3 potential controls.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed the limitations of using RDS with cancer patients to support recruitment. GC patients' constrained social networks, inadequate incentives or other factors may have contributed to the lack of success with using RDS in this setting.

Involving Family and Social Support Systems in Tobacco Cessation Treatment for Patients With Cancer

Individuals from the family and social support network of patients with cancer can have a pivotal role in reinforcing patients' efforts to become and remain tobacco-free. This support is critical along the entire continuum of cancer care. Although NCI-designated Cancer Centers across the United States are increasingly offering tobacco cessation services as a result of the NCI Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), engaging patients' family and other support network in tobacco treatment is not yet a routine practice. To facilitate the consideration and involvement of patients' social support systems (including family, peers, and non-healthcare provider caregivers), we formed the C3I Family and Social Support Systems Working Group. This paper describes the current practices and challenges among C3I cancer centers centers in engaging the support systems of patients with cancer in order to reduce tobacco use and/or secondhand smoke exposure. Building on this knowledge, this Working Group proposes a research agenda to facilitate support persons' involvement in tobacco treatment as part of oncology care. The research priorities identified include establishing (1) evidence-based strategies for engaging family and social support systems in patients' cessation efforts, (2) interventions to provide cessation treatment options to support persons, and (3) best practices to routinely identify and engage family and social support systems in patients' cessation efforts.

Pain and smoking study (PASS): A comparative effectiveness trial of smoking cessation counseling for veterans with chronic pain

Introduction

Smoking is associated with greater pain intensity and pain-related functional interference in people with chronic pain. Interventions that teach smokers with chronic pain how to apply adaptive coping strategies to promote both smoking cessation and pain self-management may be effective.

Methods

The Pain and Smoking Study (PASS) is a randomized clinical trial of a telephone-delivered, cognitive behavioral intervention among Veterans with chronic pain who smoke cigarettes. PASS participants are randomized to a standard telephone counseling intervention that includes five sessions focusing on motivational interviewing, craving and relapse management, rewards, and nicotine replacement therapy versus the same components with the addition of a cognitive behavioral intervention for pain management. Participants are assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome is smoking cessation.

Results

The 371 participants are 88% male, a median age of 60 years old (range 24–82), and smoke a median of 15 cigarettes per day. Participants are mainly white (61%), unemployed (70%), 33% had a high school degree or less, and report their overall health as “Fair” (40%) to “Poor” (11%). Overall, pain was moderately high (mean pain intensity in past week = 5.2 (Standard Deviation (SD) = 1.6) and mean pain interference = 5.5 (SD = 2.2)). Pain-related anxiety was high (mean = 47.0 (SD = 22.2)) and self-efficacy was low (mean = 3.8 (SD = 1.6)).

Conclusions

PASS utilizes an innovative smoking and pain intervention to promote smoking cessation among Veterans with chronic pain. Baseline characteristics reflect a socioeconomically vulnerable population with a high burden of mental health comorbidities.

The Challenges of Enrollment and Retention: A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Behavioral Interventions for Patients With Cancer and Their Family Caregivers

CONTEXT

Psychosocial behavioral interventions (PBIs) that target patients with cancer and their caregivers face challenges in participant enrollment and retention.

OBJECTIVES

1) Describe characteristics of the patient-caregiver PBI studies; 2) examine participant enrollment and retention rates; 3) identify factors influencing participant enrollment and retention rates; and 4) explore the strategies to promote enrollment and retention rates.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials that tested PBIs among adult patients with cancer and caregivers in five electronic databases. We conducted narrative and quantitative analyses to synthesize our findings.

RESULTS

Among 55 qualified studies reviewed, most tested the efficacy of PBIs (n = 42) and used two study arms (n = 48). In-person meeting was the most common PBI delivery mode. The primary outcomes included quality of life, physical health, and symptoms. The average of enrollment rates of patient-caregiver dyads was 33% across studies (range 8%-100%; median = 23%). The average retention rate at the end of follow-ups was 69% (range 16%-100%; median = 70%). The number of study arms, recruitment method, type of patient-caregiver relationship, and intervention duration influenced enrollment rates. Study design (efficacy vs. pilot), follow-up duration, mode of delivery, type of relationship, and intervention duration influenced retention rates. Sixteen studies reported retention strategies, including providing money/gift cards upon study completion and/or after follow-up survey, and excluding patients with advanced cancer.

CONCLUSION

Researchers need to incorporate effective strategies to optimize enrollment and retention in patient-caregiver PBI trials. Researchers need to report detailed study processes and PBI information to improve research transparency and increase consistency.

Interventions for smoking cessation in people diagnosed with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer worldwide. Smoking induces and aggravates many health problems, including vascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and cancers. Tobacco smoking constitutes the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Most people with lung cancer are still active smokers at diagnosis or frequently relapse after smoking cessation. Quitting smoking is the most effective way for smokers to reduce the risk of premature death and disability. People with lung cancer may benefit from stopping smoking. Whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one method of quitting is more effective than any other has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes for people with lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase up to 22 December 2018. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting proceedings, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the ESMO Congress, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the European Conference of Clinical Oncology (ECCO) Congress, the World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting from 2013, the Food and Drug Administration website, the European Medicine Agency for drug registration website, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 30 December 2018. We applied no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of any psychosocial or pharmacological smoking cessation intervention or combinations of both, compared with no intervention, a different psychosocial or pharmacological (or both) intervention or placebo for pharmacological interventions in people with lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the studies from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 1817 records retrieved using our search strategy, we retrieved 19 studies for further investigation. We excluded 15 trials: ten trials because we could not distinguish people with lung cancer from the other participants, or the participants were not people with lung cancer, four because they were not randomised, or RCTs. We excluded one trial because, though it was completed in 2004, no results are available. We assessed four ongoing trials for inclusion when data become available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no RCTs that determined the effectiveness of any type of smoking cessation programme for people with lung cancer. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one programme is more effective than any other. People with lung cancer should be encouraged to quit smoking and offered smoking cessation interventions. However, due to the lack of RCTs, the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions for people with lung cancer cannot be evaluated and concluded. This systematic review identified a need for RCTs to explore these.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

The challenges of recruiting cancer patient/caregiver dyads: informing randomized controlled trials

Background

Family members are increasingly involved in the care of cancer patients, however many are not prepared for this challenging role. Intervention-based studies are valuable to inform the most appropriate and effective support for caregivers. Barriers in the recruitment of patient/caregiver dyads exist but the reasons for non-participation are less well understood. This analysis determined the factors associated with participation in a randomized controlled trial involving patient/caregiver dyads, reasons for non-participation and factors associated with these reasons.

Methods

Patients with any type of cancer (other than non-melanoma skin cancer), and their caregiver were recruited at four Australian health services. Eligible patients were invited to participate together with their caregiver (N = 737). Non-participation data were collected from non-participants. Bivariate and binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine factors associated with participation.

Results

Of the 737 eligible dyads, 521 (71%) declined participation. Dyad characteristics associated with participation were caregiver gender, patient treatment modality and hospital type. The odds for participating were almost two times greater for female than male caregivers (p = 0.005); 13 times greater for patients receiving chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone (p < 0.001); and three times greater for dyads attending a private versus public hospital (p < 0.001). Reasons for non-participation were lack of interest (33%), lack of time (29%), not requiring support (23%), too burdensome (15%); factors significantly associated with these reasons were treatment modality, patient age, cancer type, and hospital type. Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and receiving chemotherapy alone were less likely to decline due to a lack of interest. Patients more likely to decline due to lack of time were those aged 40–59 years and receiving chemotherapy alone. Patients who were more likely to decline because they felt participation was too burdensome were those attending a private hospital for treatment.

Conclusions

To optimize recruitment, it is recommended that special attention is given to different cancer types and treatment modalities, gender and age. Approaching dyads at varied time points when their need for support is high is recommended. This analysis provides important information for researchers undertaking randomized controlled trials involving people diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers.

Receptivity and Preferences for Lifestyle Programs to Reduce Cancer Risk among Lung Cancer Family Members

Background

Lifestyle factors and genetic information has been found to contribute to the occurrence of lung cancer. This study assessed receptivity to participating in lifestyle programs to reduce cancer risk among unaffected lung cancer family members. We also explored demographic, medical, and psychosocial correlates of willingness to participate in lifestyle programs.

Methods

Family members who are part of a lung Cancer Family Registry were asked to fill out a survey assessing their receptivity to cancer risk reduction programs including preferences for an individual or family-based program.

Results

Of the 583 respondents, 85% were “Somewhat” or “Definitely” willing to participate in a lifestyle program. Among those receptive, about half (56%) preferred a family-based approach. Preferred programs included weight management (36%) and nutritional information (30%). Preferred delivery channels were Internet (45%) and mail-based (29%) programs. On multivariate analysis, those definitely/somewhat receptive reported greater exercise self-efficacy scores (p=0.025).

Conclusion

The majority of the sample was receptive to lifestyle programs that might decrease cancer risk. There was a large preference for family-based weight management and nutritional programs. Further research is indicated to determine how to best incorporate a family-based approach to lifestyle programs for cancer family members.

Interventions for smoking cessation in people diagnosed with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer worldwide. Smoking induces and aggravates many health problems, including vascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and cancers. Tobacco smoking constitutes the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Most people with lung cancer are still active smokers at diagnosis or frequently relapse after smoking cessation. Quitting smoking is the most effective way for smokers to reduce the risk of premature death and disability. People with lung cancer may benefit from stopping smoking. Whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one method of quitting is more effective than any other has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes for people with lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and EMBASE up to 22 June 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting proceedings, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the ESMO Congress, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the European Conference of Clinical Oncology (ECCO) Congress, the World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting from 2013, the Food and Drug Administration website, the European Medicine Agency for drug registration website, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 1 July 2015. We applied no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of any psychosocial or pharmacological smoking cessation intervention or combinations of both, compared with no intervention, a different psychosocial or pharmacological (or both) intervention or placebo for pharmacological interventions in people with lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the studies from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 1052 records retrieved using our search strategy, we retrieved 13 studies for further investigation. We excluded 10 trials: five trials because we could not distinguish people with lung cancer from the other participants, or the participants were not people with lung cancer, four because they were not randomised, or RCTs. We excluded one trial because, though it was completed in 2004, no results are available. We assessed three ongoing trials for inclusion when data become available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no RCTs that determined the effectiveness of any type of smoking cessation programme for people with lung cancer. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one programme is more effective than any other. People with lung cancer should be encouraged to quit smoking and offered smoking cessation interventions. However, due to the lack of RCTs, the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions for people with lung cancer cannot be evaluated and concluded. This systematic review identified a need for RCTs to explore these.

Patient's lung cancer diagnosis as a cue for relatives' smoking cessation: evaluating the constructs of the teachable moment

BACKGROUND

To understand whether patient-reported experiences with lung cancer may create teachable moments (TM) for their relatives as evidenced by shifts in their risk perceptions, affective response, and self-image and in turn, motivation to quit smoking.

METHODS

Patients at a comprehensive cancer center (n = 152) completed a survey within 6 months of lung cancer diagnosis to assess their cancer-related symptoms and openness and enumerated relatives who were smokers. Relative smokers (n = 218) then completed a survey assessing their risk perceptions, affective response, and self-image as a smoker related to the patient's diagnosis (TM mechanisms), and their motivation to quit smoking. Cross-sectional mediation and moderation analyses were conducted to explore the links between patient-reported experiences, and relatives' TM mechanisms, and motivation to quit smoking.

RESULTS

Relative-reported affect was a significant mediator of the association between patient-reported symptoms and relative smoker's desire to quit. Relatives' self-image was a significant moderator of the association between patient-reported symptoms and relative smoker's desire to quit, such that patients' reported symptoms were associated with relatives' desire to quit only when the relative smoker reported a generally positive self-image as a smoker. No evidence was found for moderated mediation. However, the link between symptoms and negative affect was moderated by perceptions of risk.

CONCLUSION

Whether smokers experience a family member's lung cancer as a TM is influenced by multiple interrelated cognitive and affective factors that warrant further exploration. Clearer understanding of these factors could inform how to re-invigorate and sustain this motivation to promote concrete actions toward smoking cessation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Assessment of the Impact of Adjunctive Proactive Telephone Counseling to Promote Smoking Cessation among Lung Cancer Patients' Social Networks

Purpose.

When a patient is diagnosed with lung cancer, members of his/her social network may be more likely to engage in smoking cessation efforts. Proactive telephone counseling combined with a tailored self-directed intervention may be more effective at promoting smoking cessation than a tailored self-directed intervention alone.

Design.

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting.

Four clinical sites.

Subjects.

Current smokers who are family members and close friends of patients with lung cancer.

Intervention.

Six counselor-initiated counseling calls using motivational interviewing techniques and focusing on teaching adaptive coping skills based on the transactional model of stress and coping along with tailored self-directed materials (including nicotine patches, if not contraindicated) (n = 245) vs. tailored self-directed materials (including nicotine patches, if not contraindicated) (n = 251).

Measures.

Participants were surveyed at baseline and at 2 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postintervention. The outcome was 7-day point prevalent abstinence.

Analysis.

The objective of this study was to test for arm differences in smoking cessation rates at 2 weeks and 6 months postintervention (primary) and at 12 months postintervention (secondary).

Results.

We found no overall effect of the proactive intervention on cessation rates. Among younger participants (age <50), the cessation rate in the intervention group was higher than in the control group at 2 weeks postintervention (16% vs. 4%, p = .046). For older participants (age >50), there were no group differences.

Conclusion.

Proactive telephone counseling focusing on adaptive coping skills was difficult to implement among smokers in lung cancer patients' social network. Although this study did not demonstrate any added benefit to cessation rates, this null finding may be a result of an intervention that was weaker than intended, owing to difficulties in completing the counseling phone calls. We discuss lessons learned and areas for future research in this special population.