Quality Care in Survivorship: Lessons Learned From the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Patient-Reported Receipt of Oncology Clinician-Delivered Brief Tobacco Treatment (5As) Six Months following Cancer Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis represents a modifiable health risk. It is recommended that oncology clinicians address tobacco use among their patients using the 5As brief model: Asking about use, Advising users to quit, Assessing willingness to quit, Assisting in quit attempts (counseling and medication), and Arranging follow-up. However, cross-sectional studies have found limited adoption of 5As (especially Assist and Arrange) in oncology settings. Further investigation is needed to understand changes in, and factors associated with, 5As delivery over time.

METHODS

Patients recently diagnosed with cancer and reporting current smoking (N = 303) enrolled in a smoking cessation clinical trial and completed three longitudinal surveys; at pre-intervention baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up post-enrollment. Patient-level correlates of 5As receipt at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months were identified using multilevel regression models.

RESULTS

At baseline, patient-reported rates of 5As receipt from oncology clinicians ranged from 85.17% (Ask) to 32.24% (Arrange). Delivery declined from baseline to 6-month follow-up for all 5As, with the largest declines observed for Ask, Advise, Assess, and Assist-Counseling. Diagnosis of a smoking-related cancer was associated with greater odds of 5As receipt at baseline but lower odds at 6-month follow-up. At each time point, female gender, religiosity, advanced disease, cancer-related stigma, and smoking abstinence were associated with lower odds of 5As receipt, while reporting a recent quit attempt prior to enrollment was associated with higher odds of 5As receipt.

CONCLUSION

Oncology clinicians' 5As delivery declined over time. Clinician delivery of the 5As varied based on patients' sociodemographics, clinical and smoking characteristics, and psychosocial factors.

Effectiveness and implementation of models of cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews

PURPOSE

To critically assess the effectiveness and implementation of different models of post-treatment cancer survivorship care compared to specialist-led models of survivorship care assessed in published systematic reviews.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2005 to May 2021. Systematic reviews that compared at least two models of cancer survivorship care were included. Article selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors. The models were evaluated according to cancer survivorship care domains, patient and caregiver experience, communication and decision-making, care coordination, quality of life, healthcare utilization, costs, and mortality. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were also synthesized.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews were included, capturing 53 primary studies. Effectiveness for managing survivors' physical and psychosocial outcomes was found to be no different across models. Nurse-led and primary care provider-led models may produce cost savings to cancer survivors and healthcare systems. Barriers to the implementation of different models of care included limited resources, communication, and care coordination, while facilitators included survivor engagement, planning, and flexible services.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence regarding the equivalent effectiveness of nurse-led, primary care-led, or shared care models, these models are not widely adopted, and evidence-based recommendations to guide implementation are required. Further research is needed to address effectiveness in understudied domains of care and outcomes and across different population groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Rather than aiming for an optimal "one-size fits all" model of survivorship care, applying the most appropriate model in distinct contexts can improve outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Cessation experiences and quitting perspectives of Jordanian cancer patients who smoke

OBJECTIVES

To describe quitting experiences of cancer patients in a Cancer Center in Jordan; to study patients' perceptions regarding the process of smoking cessation; and to provide insights about patients in this difficult setting in order to inform oncology practitioners with regards to how improve perceptions and skills related to quitting.

METHODS

An Arabic cross-sectional questionnaire was developed to evaluate smoking and quitting behaviors in the context of cancer. The tool used as its framework the Theoretical Domains Framework to capture quitting perceptions of cancer patients who smoke, as well as social, environmental, and system-level factors that influence quitting. Eligible patients who were treated at the Center (both in-patient and out-patient settings) and who were current smokers or who smoked up to the time of cancer diagnosis were eligible. Patients were interviewed between July, 2018 and January 2020 using two versions of the questionnaire: an 'ex-smokers' version, and a 'current smokers' version.

RESULTS

Only a third of subjects (104/350) had been smoke-free for at least 30 days. Both smokers and ex-smokers generally felt that quitting was important, but mean importance and confidence scores (out of 10) were significantly lower in current smokers (8.2 versus 9.1, p-value=0.002; 6.4 versus 8.7, p-value=0.000). Roughly 31% of subjects believed smoking harms were exaggerated and that smoking was not an addiction. About 62% of subjects agreed quitting required skills, and 78.5% felt the steps to quit were clear, but across several listed strategies for quitting, use of these was limited (even in ex-smokers). Among current smokers, roughly a third exhibited forms of cessation fatigue.

CONCLUSION

Jordanian cancer patients who smoke present with limited knowledge about the quitting process. Even when some success is observed, low rates of utilization of specific quitting strategies were observed, highlighting the need for better counseling about quitting.