Pragmatic Application of the RE-AIM Framework to Evaluate the Implementation of Tobacco Cessation Programs Within NCI-Designated Cancer Centers

Enabling tobacco treatment for gastroenterology patients via a novel low-burden point-of-care model

BACKGROUND & AIM

Smoking is a major risk factor for multiple gastrointestinal cancers, and adversely affects peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux, pancreatitis and Crohn's disease. Despite key recommendations for diagnosing and treating tobacco use disorder in healthcare settings, the degree to which this is implemented in Gastroenterology (GI) clinics is unknown. We aimed to assess our providers' practices, identify barriers for implementing evidence-based smoking cessation treatments, and address these barriers by implementing a novel low-burden point of care Electronic health record-enabled evidence-based tobacco treatment (ELEVATE), in GI clinics.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to clinic gastroenterologists. ELEVATE module training was implemented in 1/2021. Data were evaluated during pre (7/2020-12/2020) and post (1/2021-12/2021) implementation periods to evaluate the reach and effectiveness of ELEVATE. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to generate rate ratios (RR) to evaluate the intervention.

RESULTS

91% (20/22) of GI physicians responded to our survey, and only 20% often assisted patients who smoke with counseling. Lack of a systematic program to offer help to patients was reported by 80% of providers as an extremely/very important barrier limiting their smoking cessation practices. The proportion of current patients who smoke receiving cessation treatment increased from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (14.36-27.47%, RR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.60-2.26, p < .001). Post-ELEVATE, 14.4% (38/264) of patients with treatment quit smoking, compared to 7.9% (55/697) of patients without treatment (RR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.26-2.82, p = .0021).

CONCLUSION

Smoking practices are frequently assessed in GI clinics but barriers limiting cessation treatment exist. The use of a low burden point of care EHR enabled smoking cessation treatment module has led to a significant improvement in the treatment of smoking and subsequent cessation in our clinics. This study sheds light on an often under-recognized source of morbidity in GI patients and identifies an efficient, effective, and scalable strategy to combat tobacco use and improve clinical outcomes in our patients.

Improving safety and preventing falls using an evidence-based, front-line staff huddling practice: protocol for a pragmatic trial to increase quality of care in State Veterans Homes

INTRODUCTION

Falls in nursing homes are a major cause for decreases in residents' quality of life and overall health. This study aims to reduce resident falls by implementing the LOCK Falls Programme, an evidence-based quality improvement intervention. The LOCK Falls Programme involves the entire front-line care team in (1) focusing on evidence of positive change, (2) collecting data through systematic observation and (3) facilitating communication and coordination of care through the practice of front-line staff huddles.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study protocol describes a mixed-methods, 4-year hybrid (type 2) effectiveness-implementation study in State Veterans Homes in the USA. The study uses a pragmatic stepped-wedge randomised trial design and employs relational coordination theory and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework to guide implementation and evaluation. A total of eight State Veterans Homes will participate and data will be collected over an 18-month period. Administrative data inclusive of all clinical assessments and Minimum Data Set assessments for Veterans with a State Veterans Home admission or stay during the study period will be collected (8480 residents total). The primary outcome is a resident having any fall. The primary analysis will be a partial intention-to-treat analysis using the rate of participants experiencing any fall. A staff survey (n=1200) and qualitative interviews with residents (n=80) and staff (n=400) will also be conducted. This research seeks to systematically address known barriers to nursing home quality improvement efforts associated with reducing falls.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the Central Institutional Review Board (#167059-11). All participants will be recruited voluntarily and will sign informed consent as required. Collection, assessment and managing of solicited and spontaneously reported adverse events, including required protocol alterations, will be communicated and approved directly with the Central Institutional Review Board, the data safety monitoring board and the Office of Research and Development. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations at the Academy Health Annual Research Meeting, the Gerontological Society of America Annual Scientific Meeting and the American Geriatrics Society Annual Meeting. Key stakeholders will also help disseminate lessons learnt.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05906095.

Genomic medicine to reduce tobacco and related disorders: Translation to precision prevention and treatment

Genomic medicine can enhance prevention and treatment. First, we propose that advances in genomics have the potential to enhance assessment of disease risk, improve prognostic predictions, and guide treatment development and application. Clinical implementation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) has emerged as an area of active research. The pathway from genomic discovery to implementation is an iterative process. Second, we provide examples on how genomic medicine has the potential to solve problems in prevention and treatment using two examples: Lung cancer screening and evidence-based tobacco treatment are both under-utilized and great opportunities for genomic interventions. Third, we discuss the translational process for developing genomic interventions from evidence to implementation by presenting a model to evaluate genomic evidence for clinical implementation, mechanisms of genomic interventions, and patient desire for genomic interventions. Fourth, we present potential challenges in genomic interventions including a great need for evidence in all diverse populations, little evidence on treatment algorithms, challenges in accommodating a dynamic evidence base, and implementation challenges in real world clinical settings. Finally, we conclude that research to identify genomic markers that are associated with smoking cessation success and the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments is needed to empower people of all diverse ancestry. Importantly, genomic data can be used to help identify patients with elevated risk for nicotine addiction, difficulty quitting smoking, favorable response to specific pharmacotherapy, and tobacco-related health problems.

Implementation planning for equitable tobacco treatment services: a mixed methods assessment of contextual facilitators and barriers in a large comprehensive cancer center

Tobacco use among cancer patients is associated with an increased mortality and poorer outcomes, yet two-thirds of patients continue using following diagnosis, with disproportionately higher use among racial/ethnic minority and low socioeconomic status patients. Tobacco treatment services that are effectively tailored and adapted to population characteristics and multilevel context specific to settings serving diverse patients are needed to improve tobacco cessation among cancer patients. We examined tobacco use screening and implementation needs for tobacco treatment services to inform equitable and accessible delivery within a large comprehensive cancer center in the greater Los Angeles region. We conducted a multi-modal, mixed methods assessment using electronic medical records (EMR), and clinic stakeholder surveys and interviews (guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). Approximately 45% of patients (n = 11,827 of 26,030 total) had missing tobacco use history in their EMR. Several demographic characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, insurance) were associated with greater missing data prevalence. In surveys (n = 32), clinic stakeholders endorsed tobacco screening and cessation services, but indicated necessary improvements for screening/referral procedures. During interviews (n = 13), providers/staff reported tobacco screening was important, but level of priority differed as well as how often and who should screen. Several barriers were noted, including patients' language/cultural barriers, limited time during visits, lack of smoking cessation training, and insurance coverage. While stakeholders indicated high interest in tobacco use assessment and cessation services, EMR and interview data revealed opportunities to improve tobacco use screening across patient groups. Implementing sustainable system-level tobacco cessation programs at institutions requires leadership support, staff training, on routine screening, and intervention and referral strategies that meet patients' linguistic/cultural needs.

Qualitative evaluation of the implementation and future sustainability of an e-referral system for smoking cessation at a US NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center: lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Promoting smoking cessation is recognized as an essential part of cancer care. Moffitt Cancer Center, supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, developed and implemented an opt-out-based automatic electronic health record (EHR)-mediated referral (e-referral) system for Tobacco Quitline services along with options for local group cessation support and an in-house tobacco treatment specialist. This study evaluated barriers and facilitators for implementation of the e-referral system.

METHOD

Steering committee members (N=12) responsible for developing and implementing the new clinical workflow and nurses (N=12) who were expected to use the new e-referral system completed semi-structured interviews. Qualitative thematic content analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Interviewees perceived the e-referral system as an effective strategy for identifying and referring smokers to cessation services. However, barriers were noted including competing demands and perceptions that smoking cessation was a low priority and that some patients were likely to have low motivation to quit smoking. Suggestions to improve future implementation and sustainability included providing regular trainings and e-referral outcome reports and increasing the visibility of the e-referral system within the EHR.

CONCLUSION

Initial implementation of the e-referral system was perceived as successful; however, additional implementation strategies are needed to ensure sustainability at both the clinician and system levels. Recommendations for future modifications include providing regular clinician trainings and developing a fully closed-loop system. Implications for cancer survivors Initial implementation of an e-referral system for smoking cessation for cancer patients revealed opportunities to improve the smoking cessation referral process at cancer centers.

Data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of tobacco treatment programs in the NCI Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

BACKGROUND

The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources.

METHODS

DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes.

RESULTS

In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8).

CONCLUSION

Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.

Integrating Tobacco Use Assessment and Treatment in the Oncology Setting: Quality Improvement Results from the Georgetown Lombardi Smoking Treatment and Recovery Program

As part of the NCI’s Cancer Center Cessation (C3i) initiative, we initiated, expanded, and maintained an evidence-based tobacco treatment program at the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. We present a quality improvement (QI) assessment of the implementation process and patient-level outcomes. At two hematology/oncology outpatient clinical sites, five oncology-based teams (clinical administrators, clinical staff, pharmacy, information technology, and tobacco treatment staff) developed implementation strategies for opt-out patient assessment and enrollment, centralized tobacco treatment, audit, feedback, and staff training. Among eligible patients (tobacco use in ≤30 days), we assessed demographic, clinical, and tobacco-related characteristics to examine predictors of enrollment (baseline completed), treatment engagement (≥one sessions completed), and self-reported 7-day abstinence (6 months post-enrollment). Across both sites, medical assistants screened 19,344 (82.4%) patients for tobacco use, which identified 1345 (7.0%) current tobacco users, in addition to 213 clinician referrals. Of the 687/1256 (54.7%) eligible patients reached, 301 (43.8%) enrolled, and 199 (29.0%) engaged in treatment, of whom 74.5% were African American and 68% were female. At the larger site, significant multivariate predictors of enrollment included African American race (vs. white/other) and clinician referral (vs. MA assessment). Treatment engagement was predicted by greater nicotine dependence, and abstinence (27.4%) was predicted by greater treatment engagement. In summary, the systematic utilization of multiple oncology-based teams and implementation strategies resulted in the development and maintenance of a high-quality, population-based approach to tobacco treatment. Importantly, these strategies addressed inequities in tobacco treatment, as the program reached and engaged a majority-African-American patient population. Finally, the opt-out patient assessment strategy has been implemented in multiple oncology settings at MedStar Health through the Commission on Cancer’s Just Ask program.

Increasing clinician participation in tobacco cessation by an implementation science-based tobacco cessation champion program

BACKGROUND

We designed a process to increase tobacco cessation in an academic center and its widely distributed network community sites using clinical champions to overcome referral barriers.

METHODS

In 2020 a needs assessment was performed across the City of Hope Medical Center and its 32 community treatment sites. We reviewed information science strategies to choose elements for our expanded tobacco control plan, focusing on distributed leadership with tobacco cessation champions. We analyzed smoking patterns in patients with cancer before and following program implementation. We evaluated the champion experience and measured tobacco abstinence after 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Cancer center leadership committed to expanding tobacco control. Funding was obtained through a Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) grant. Multi-disciplinary leaders developed a comprehensive plan. Disease-focused clinics and community sites named cessation champions (a clinician and nurse) supported by certified tobacco treatment specialists. Patient, staff, clinician, and champion training/education were developed. Roles and responsibilities of the champions were defined. Implementation in pilot sites showed increased tobacco assessment from 80.8 to 96.6%, increased tobacco cessation referral by 367%, and moderate smoking abstinence in both academic (27.2%) and community sites (22.5%). 73% of champions had positive attitudes toward the program.

CONCLUSION

An efficient process to expand smoking cessation in the City of Hope network was developed using implementation science strategies and cessation champions. This well-detailed implementation process may be helpful to other cancer centers, particularly those with a tertiary care cancer center and community network.

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.

Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care-The New National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph

PURPOSE

Continued smoking after the diagnosis of cancer can markedly worsen oncology treatment side effects, cancer outcomes, cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality. Conversely, mounting evidence demonstrates that smoking cessation by patients with cancer improves outcomes. A cancer diagnosis often serves as a teachable moment, characterized by high motivation to quit. However, too few patients with cancer who smoke are offered evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, and too few engage in such treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The National Cancer Institute commissioned Tobacco Control Monograph 23, Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care, to review and synthesize the evidence that clarifies the need to intervene with smoking in cancer care.

RESULTS

Although many patients with newly diagnosed cancer who smoke make quit attempts, many of these are unsuccessful, and among those who successfully quit, relapse is common. Indeed, an estimated 12.2% of adults ever diagnosed with cancer reported they currently smoked (National Health Interview Survey, 2020). Patients with cancer who smoke are likely to benefit from smoking cessation treatments, including counseling and US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, and there are many effective strategies to increase delivery of smoking cessation treatment in cancer care settings.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation is among the most effective treatment options for improving the likelihood of survival, quality of life, and overall health of patients with cancer who smoke. It is important for cancer care clinicians and patients to realize that it is never too late to quit smoking and that there are clear benefits to doing so, regardless of cancer type.

Accelerating integration of tobacco use treatment in the context of lung cancer screening: Relevance and application of implementation science to achieving policy and practice

Based on the findings from the National Lung Screening Trial, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) among high-risk adults. Approximately 54% of individuals seeking LCS report current cigarette smoking. Effective smoking cessation interventions, offered at the time of LCS, enhances the health benefits of screening that are attributable to reductions in lung cancer overall and tobacco-related mortality. Considering these data, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) 2015 decision to cover LCS with LDCT required that radiology imaging facilities make tobacco cessation interventions available for people who smoke. In February 2022, CMS reversed their 2015 coverage requirement for delivering tobacco use treatment at the time of LDCT; CMS retained the requirement for counseling during the shared decision-making visit prior to the exam. The policy change does not diminish the importance of offering high-quality tobacco cessation services in conjunction with routine LDCT for LCS. However, LCS programs face a range of barriers to implementing tobacco use treatment in their settings. As a result, implementation has lagged. Closing the "evidence to practice" gap is the focus of implementation science, a field that offers a set of rigorous methods and a systematic approach to identifying and overcoming contextual barriers to implementing evidence-based guidelines in a range of clinical settings. In this paper, we describe how implementation science frameworks and methods can be used to help guide LCS programs in their efforts to integrate tobacco use treatment and discuss policy changes needed to further facilitate the delivery of TUT as an essential component of the LCS process.

Applying implementation frameworks to the clinical trial context

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials advance science, benefit society, and provide optimal care to individuals with some conditions, such as cancer. However, clinical trials often fail to reach their endpoints, and low participant enrollment remains a critical problem with trial conduct. In these ways, clinical trials can be considered beneficial evidence-based practices suffering from poor implementation. Prior approaches to improving trials have had difficulties with reproducibility and limited impact, perhaps due to the lack of an underlying trial improvement framework. For these reasons, we propose adapting implementation science frameworks to the clinical trial context to improve the implementation of clinical trials.

MAIN TEXT

We adapted an outcomes framework (Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework) and a determinants framework (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) to the trial context. We linked these frameworks to ERIC-based improvement strategies and present an inferential process model for identifying and selecting trial improvement strategies based on the Implementation Research Logic Model. We describe example applications of the framework components to the trial context and present a worked example of our model applied to a trial with poor enrollment. We then consider the implications of this approach on improving existing trials, the design of future trials, and assessing trial improvement interventions. Additionally, we consider the use of implementation science in the clinical trial context, and how clinical trials can be "test cases" for implementation research.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials can be considered beneficial evidence-based interventions suffering from poor implementation. Adapting implementation science approaches to the clinical trial context can provide frameworks for contextual assessment, outcome measurement, targeted interventions, and a shared vocabulary for clinical trial improvement. Additionally, exploring implementation frameworks in the trial context can advance the science of implementation through both "test cases" and providing fertile ground for implementation intervention design and testing.

Envisioning clinical trials as complex interventions

Clinical trials are critical components of modern health care and infrastructure. Trials benefit society through scientific advancement and individual patients through trial participation. In fact, billions of dollars are spent annually in support of these benefits. Despite the massive investments, clinical trials often fail to accomplish their primary aims and trial enrollment rates remain low. Prior efforts to improve trial conduct and enrollment have had limited success, perhaps due to oversimplification of the complex, multilevel nature of trials. For these reasons, the authors propose applying implementation science to the clinical trials context. In this commentary, the authors posit clinical trials as complex, multilevel evidence-based interventions with significant societal and individual benefits yet with persistent gaps in implementation. An application of implementation science concepts to the clinical trials context as means to build common vocabulary and establish a platform for applying implementation science and practice to improve clinical trial conduct is introduced. Applying implementation science to the clinical trials context can augment improvement efforts and build capacity for better and more efficient evidence-based care for all patients and trial stakeholders throughout the clinical trials enterprise.

Point of care tobacco treatment sustains during COVID-19, a global pandemic

BACKGROUND

Tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients is essential to providing comprehensive oncologic care. We have implemented a point of care tobacco treatment care model enabled by electronic health record (EHR) modifications in a comprehensive cancer center. Data are needed on the sustainability of both reach of treatment and effectiveness over time, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Using EHR data from the pre-implementation (P: 5 months) and post-implementation periods (6 month-blocks, T1-T5 for a total of 30 months), we compared two primary outcomes: 1) reach of treatment among those smoking and 2) effectiveness assessed by smoking cessation among those smoking in the subsequent 6 month period. We analyzed the data using generalized estimation equation regression models.

RESULTS

With the point of care tobacco treatment care model, reach of treatment increased from pre to post T5 (3.2 % vs. 48.4 %, RR 15.50, 95 % CI 10.56-22.74, p < 0.0001). Reach of treatment in all post periods (T1-T5 including the COVID-19 pandemic time) remained significantly higher than the pre period. Effectiveness, defined by smoking cessation among those smoking, increased from pre to post T2 before the pandemic (12.4 % vs. 21.4 %, RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.31-1.87, p < 0.0001). However, effectiveness, while higher in later post periods (T3, T4), was no longer significantly increased compared with the pre period.

CONCLUSION

A point of care EHR-enabled tobacco treatment care model demonstrates sustained reach up to 30 months following implementation, even during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in healthcare prioritization. Effectiveness was sustained for 12 months, but did not sustain through the subsequent 12 months.

Reach and effectiveness of the NCI Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Smoking cessation results in improved cancer treatment outcomes. However, the factors associated with successful implementation of cessation programs in cancer care settings are not well understood. This paper presents the reach the reach and effectiveness of cessation programs implemented in NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted among C3I Cancer Centers from July 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 (N = 38). Reach was calculated as the proportion of patients reporting current smoking that received cessation treatment and was analyzed overall and by organizational characteristics. Smoking abstinence rates were determined by the proportion of participants self-reporting smoking abstinence in the previous 7 and 30 days at 6 months after treatment. On average, nearly 30% of patients who smoked received any cessation treatment. In-person counseling was most implemented but reached an average of only 13.2% of patients who smoked. Although less frequently implemented, average reach was highest for counseling provided via an interactive voice response system (55.8%) and telephone-based counseling (18.7%). Reach was higher at centers with more established programs, electronic health record referral systems, and higher smoking prevalence. At 6-month follow-up, about a fifth of participants on average had not smoked in the past 7 days (21.7%) or past 30 days (18.6%). Variations in reach by organizational characteristics suggest that leadership engagement and investment in technology-facilitated programs may yield higher levels of reach. Understanding which implementation and intervention strategies facilitate greater cessation treatment reach and effectiveness could lead to improved outcomes among cancer patients who smoke.

Optimizing tobacco treatment delivery for people with HIV: trial protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

With advances in antiretroviral therapy, people with HIV (PWH) are living longer and are less likely to die from AIDS-related complications. Yet, prior research has shown that smoking is often not addressed in the context of HIV care, and few individuals are offered cessation treatment. Optimizing tobacco treatment delivery for PWH may increase engagement with evidence-based treatments and successful quit attempts.

METHODS

The current study is a type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial to evaluate the impact of a proactive, opt-out tobacco treatment intervention on cessation outcomes and advance understanding of key barriers and facilitators of implementation processes. A total of 230 PWH who smoke will be recruited from an infectious diseases clinic at an academic medical center and will be randomized to receive (1) treatment as usual (TAU) or (2) Proactive Outreach with Medication Opt-out for Tobacco Treatment Engagement (PrOMOTE). Primary outcomes include: biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) rates, continuous abstinence (Weeks 9-12), and the number of 24-hour quit attempts at the end of study treatment (Week 12). Secondary outcomes include: participant reach (proportion reached out of contact attempts), implementation fidelity (including number of prescriptions written), participant adherence to prescribed pharmacotherapy, acceptability (participant and provider satisfaction with intervention delivery and content), and perceived barriers.

DISCUSSION

This study will examine a novel approach to optimizing tobacco treatment delivery for PWH. Integrating effectiveness and implementation results will help define best practices for engaging PWH with evidence-based tobacco treatment interventions. The intervention is low-cost, has the potential to be highly scalable, and could be translatable to other ambulatory HIV clinic settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05019495 (August 24, 2021).

Implementation and Outcomes of a Comprehensive Tobacco Free Workplace Program in Opioid Treatment Centers

Tobacco use is exceedingly high among individuals receiving care for opioid addiction, but not commonly addressed by clinicians in treatment settings. Taking Texas Tobacco Free (TTTF) is a comprehensive tobacco-free workplace (TFW) program that builds treatment centers' capacity to address tobacco use with evidence-based tobacco cessation policies and practices. Here, we examine the process and outcomes of TTTF's implementation within 7 opioid addiction centers. Program goals were structured according to the RE-AIM framework. Pre- and post-implementation data were collected from client facing and non-client facing employees to assess changes in education, training receipt, knowledge, and intervention behaviors, relative to program goals. Centers reported tobacco screenings conducted and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) delivered through 6 months post-implementation. Overall, 64.56% of employees participated in TTTF-delivered tobacco education, with a 54.9% gain in tobacco control and treatment knowledge (p < 0.0001), and significant increases in exposure to education about tobacco use and harms among individuals with opioid use disorder (p = 0.0401). There were significant gains in clinicians' receipt of training in 9/9 tobacco education areas (ps ≤ 0.0118). From pre- to post-implementation, there were mean increases in the use of the 5A's (ask, advise, assess, assist, and arrange) and other evidence-based interventions for tobacco cessation, with statistically significant gains seen in NRT provision/referral (p < 0.0001). Several program goals were achieved or exceeded; however, 100% center participation in specialized clinical trainings was among notable exceptions. One program withdrew due to competing pandemic concerns; all others implemented comprehensive TFW policies. Overall, TTTF may have improved participating opioid treatment centers' capacity to address tobacco use, although study limitations, including lower post-implementation evaluation response rates, suggest that results require replication in other opioid addiction treatment settings.

Applying the lessons of implementation science to maximize feasibility and usability in team science intervention development

The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has generated a substantial body of work detailing characteristics of effective teams. However, that knowledge has not been widely translated into accessible, active, actionable, evidence-based interventions to help translational teams enhance their team functioning and outcomes. Over the past decade, the field of Implementation Science has rapidly developed methods and approaches to increase the translation of biomedical research findings into clinical care, providing a roadmap for mitigating the challenges of developing interventions while maximizing feasibility and utility. Here, we propose an approach to intervention development using constructs from two Implementation Science frameworks, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance, to extend the Wisconsin Interventions for Team Science framework described in Rolland et al. 2021. These Implementation Science constructs can help SciTS researchers design, build, test, and disseminate interventions that meet the needs of both adopters, the institutional leadership that decides whether to adopt an intervention, and implementers, those actually using the intervention. Systematically considering the impact of design decisions on feasibility and usability may lead to the design of interventions that can quickly move from prototype to pilot test to pragmatic trials to assess their impact.

Implementation Science to Improve Tobacco Cessation Services in Oncology Care

Every patient with cancer deserves access to evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions as part of their routine oncology care. The NCI Cancer Moonshot funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) to help establish and/or expand tobacco treatment programs at 52 NCI-designated Cancer Centers. Although this initiative has broadened the availability of tobacco treatment services across US cancer centers, the reach and utilization of these services remains low among patients. To help address the remaining gap between the availability and utilization of evidence-based treatments for tobacco use in the oncologic context, staff and investigators at C3I sites and the C3I Coordinating Center formed the C3I Implementation Science Working Group. The mission of this working group is to bring together clinicians, scientists, and policymakers who share a common interest in implementation science and treating tobacco use in the oncologic context to collaborate on projects aimed at shrinking the practice gap in this area. Through case study examples, we describe how the C3I Implementation Science Working Group is supporting efforts to identify effective ways to increase the utilization of evidence-based tobacco treatments within cancer treatment settings and promote the broader impact and long-term sustainability of C3I.

Factors associated with changes in inpatients' smoking pattern during hospitalization and one month after discharge: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Smokers are frequent users of healthcare services. Admissions to hospital can serve as a "teachable moment" for quitting smoking. Clinical guidelines recommend initiating smoking cessation services during hospitalization; however, in Southern European countries less than 5% of inpatients receive a brief intervention for smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were (i) to examine rates of smoking abstinence during and after hospitalization; (ii) to measure changes in smoking patterns among persons who continued smoking after discharge; and (iii) to identify predictors of abstinence during hospitalization and after discharge.

METHODS

A cohort study of a representative sample of current adult smokers hospitalized in two Spanish and two Portuguese hospitals. We surveyed smokers during hospitalization and recontacted them one month after discharge. We used a 25-item ad hoc questionnaire regarding their smoking pattern, the smoking cessation intervention they have received during hospitalization, and hospital and sociodemographic characteristics. We performed a descriptive analysis using the chi-square test and a multivariate logistic regression to characterize the participant, hospital, and smoking cessation intervention (5As model) characteristics associated with smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

Smoking patients from both countries presented high abstinence rates during hospitalization (Spain: 76.4%; Portugal: 70.2%); however, after discharge, their abstinence rates decreased to 55.3% and 46.8%, respectively. In Spain, smokers who tried to quit before hospital admission showed higher abstinence rates, and those who continued smoking reduced a mean of five cigarettes the number of cigarettes per day (p ≤ 0.001). In Portugal, abstinence rates were higher among women (p = 0.030), those not living with a smoker (p = 0.008), those admitted to medical-surgical wards (p = 0.035), who consumed their first cigarette within 60 min after waking (p = 0.006), and those who were trying to quit before hospitalization (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the smokers admitted into the Spanish hospitals are abstinent one month after discharge or have reduced their cigarettes per day. Nevertheless, success rates could be increased by implementing evidence-based tobacco cessation programs at the organizational-level, including post-discharge active quitting smoking support.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Three-quarters of the inpatients who smoke remain abstinent during hospitalization and over half achieve to maintain their abstinence or at least reduce their consumption one month after discharge, proving that admission to hospitals is an excellent teachable moment to quit smoking.

Walking the talk on multi-level interventions: The power of parsimony

There is strong consensus regarding the need for multi-level interventions (MLIs) to address today's complex health problems. Several longstanding social ecological frameworks are commonly referred to in guiding MLI development. The specificity and comprehensiveness of these frameworks unwittingly suggest that the totality of included influences are important in all health contexts. Not surprisingly, when viewed as requiring intervention at all levels of influence, MLIs are often considered to be infeasible due to sizeable cost and logistical barriers. Thus, efforts to develop and evaluate MLIs have been extremely limited, and comparatively few examples are found in the health literature. We argue that operational frameworks to identify which levels matter in which contexts - henceforth, referred to as parsimony - could accelerate the field towards broader use of MLIs. We suggest a hypothetical operational framework informed by complexity theory and pragmatic approaches that could enable us to conceptualize, design and evaluate MLIs to consider where reflexive and recursive process mechanisms that cross levels should be targeted by MLI. The approach also emphasizes sustainability of MLIs. Without developing parsimony-based operational frameworks to move us forward, we fear that little will change, and we will simply continue to talk, without proceeding to the walk.

Achieving Equity in the Reach of Smoking Cessation Services Within the NCI Cancer Moonshot-Funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Background: Ensuring equitable access to smoking cessation services for cancer patients is necessary to avoid increasing disparities in tobacco use and cancer outcomes. In 2017, the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) funded National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Cancer Centers to integrate evidence-based smoking cessation programs into cancer care. We describe the progress of C3I Cancer Centers in expanding the reach of cessation services across cancer populations.

Methods: Cancer centers (n=17) reported on program characteristics and reach (the proportion of smokers receiving evidence-based cessation treatment) for two 6-month periods. Reach was calculated overall and by patient gender, race, ethnicity, and age.

Results: Average reach increased from 18.5% to 25.6% over 1 year. Reach increased for all racial/ethnic groups, and in particular for American Indian/Alaska Native (6.6–24.7%), Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (7.3–19.4%), and black (18.8–25.9%) smokers. Smaller gains in reach were observed among Hispanic smokers (19.0–22.8%), but these were similar to gains among non-Hispanic smokers (18.9–23.9%). By age group, smokers aged 18–24 years (6.6–14.5%) and >65 years (16.1–24.5%) saw the greatest increases in reach.

Conclusion: C3I Cancer Centers achieved gains in providing smoking cessation services to cancer patients who smoke, thereby reducing disparities that had existed across important subgroups. Taking a population-based approach to integrating tobacco treatment into cancer care has potential to increase reach equity. Implementation strategies including targeted and proactive outreach to patients and interventions to increase providers' adoption of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may advance reach even further.

Training oncology care providers in the assessment and treatment of tobacco use and dependence

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines for promoting smoking cessation in cancer care exist; however, most oncology settings have not established tobacco use assessment and treatment as standard care. Inadequate staff training and other implementation challenges have been identified as barriers for delivery of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Providing training in tobacco treatment tailored to the unique needs of tobacco-dependent patients with cancer is one strategy to improve adoption of best practices to promote smoking cessation in cancer care.

METHODS

A tobacco treatment training program for oncology care providers (tobacco treatment training-oncology [TTT-O]) consisting of a 2-day didactic and experiential workshop followed by 6 monthly, collaboratory videoconference calls supporting participants in their efforts to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in their oncology settings was developed and implemented. This article presents preliminary results on program evaluation, changes in participants' self-efficacy, and progress in implementing tobacco treatment.

RESULTS

Data have been obtained from the first 5 cohorts of TTT-O participants (n = 110) who completed training, course evaluations, baseline and follow-up surveys. Participants rated the training as highly favorable and reported significant gains in self-efficacy in their ability to assess and treat tobacco dependence. Participants also demonstrated significant improvements in tobacco treatment skills and implementation of several indicators of improved adoption of best practices for tobacco treatment in their cancer care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of tobacco treatment training for cancer care providers is feasible, acceptable, and can have a significant positive impact on participants' tobacco treatment skills, self-efficacy, and greater adoption of tobacco treatment delivery in cancer care.

Pre-Implementation of the Age-Friendly Health Systems Evidence-Based 4Ms Framework in a Multi-State Convenient Care Practice

BACKGROUND

Quality issues in the delivery of healthcare services to older adults and changes in societal demographics call for a social movement to improve the care of older adults in a variety of healthcare settings, including ambulatory care and convenient care clinics.

AIMS

To describe the pre-implementation phase to integrate the Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) 4Ms (i.e., What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility) Framework in 1,100 MinuteClinics (the retail medical clinic of CVS Health) using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and RE-AIM (an evaluation implementation framework).

METHODS

The CFIR and RE-AIM models guided data collection. Data were collected from all stakeholders (patients, healthcare providers, managers, educators, informatics staff, communications staff, and implementation consultants) via observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, organizational readiness assessment, stakeholder assessment, and workflow mapping during a 15-month period to identify potential barriers, facilitators, and other opportunities for implementation.

RESULTS

The CFIR and RE-AIM implementation frameworks provided a comprehensive approach to guide the pre-implementation phase of the AFHS 4Ms Framework at the MinuteClinic. The baseline assessments guided by the CFIR revealed important insights in the choice of implementation strategies that were developed and tested in the pre-implementation phase, and the RE-AIM guided meaningful components to the development of the logic model.

LINKING ACTION TO EVIDENCE

As more healthcare systems integrate the AFHS 4Ms Framework, the approach reported in this quality improvement project can be used in other settings to facilitate a comprehensive implementation.

Mixed-methods economic evaluation of the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

Background

The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) was launched in 2017 as a part of the NCI Cancer Moonshot program to assist NCI-designated cancer centers in developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients. Participating centers have implemented varied evidence-based programs that fit their institutional resources and needs, offering a wide range of services including in-person and telephone-based counseling, point of care, interactive voice response systems, referral to the quitline, text- and web-based services, and medications.

Methods

We used a mixed methods comparative case study design to evaluate system-level implementation costs across 15 C3I-funded cancer centers that reported for at least one 6-month period between July 2018 and June 2020. We analyzed operating costs by resource category (e.g., personnel, medications) concurrently with transcripts from semi-structured key-informant interviews conducted during site visits. Personnel salary costs were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data adjusted for area and occupation, and non-wage benefits. Qualitative findings provided additional information on intangible resources and contextual factors related to implementation costs.

Results

Median total monthly operating costs across funded centers were $11,045 (range: $5129–$20,751). The largest median operating cost category was personnel ($10,307; range: $4122–$19,794), with the highest personnel costs attributable to the provision of in-person program services. Monthly (non-zero) cost ranges for other categories were medications ($17–$573), materials ($6–$435), training ($96–$516), technology ($171–$2759), and equipment ($10–$620). Median cost-per-participant was $466 (range: $70–$2093) and cost-per-quit was $2688 (range: $330–$9628), with sites offering different combinations of program components, ranging from individually-delivered in-person counseling only to one program that offered all components. Site interviews provided context for understanding variations in program components and their cost implications.

Conclusions

Among most centers that have progressed in tobacco treatment program implementation, cost-per-quit was modest relative to other prevention interventions. Although select centers have achieved similar average costs by offering program components of various levels of intensity, they have varied widely in program reach and effectiveness. Evaluating implementation costs of such programs alongside reach and effectiveness is necessary to provide decision makers in oncology settings with the important additional information needed to optimize resource allocation when establishing tobacco treatment programs.

Leveraging Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement via the Electronic Health Record to Connect Patients with Cancer to Smoking Cessation Treatment

Tobacco use negatively impacts cancer treatment outcomes, yet too few providers actively support their patients in quitting. Barriers to consistently addressing tobacco use and referring to treatment include time constraints and lack of knowledge surrounding treatment options. Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) measurement is best practice in cancer care and has potential to help address these barriers to tobacco cessation treatment. This descriptive program evaluation study reports preliminary results following implementation of a novel automated PRO tobacco use screener and referral system via the electronic health record (EHR) patient portal (MyChart) that was developed and implemented as a part of a population-based tobacco treatment program at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University. Between 25 June 2019 and 6 April 2020, 4589 unique patients completed the screener and 164 (3.6%) unique patients screened positive for recent (past month) cigarette smoking. All patients who screened positive were automatically referred to a smoking cessation treatment program integrated within the Lurie Cancer Center, and 71 (49.7%) patients engaged in treatment, as defined by completing at least one behavioral counseling session. Preliminary results indicate that the PRO/MyChart system may improve smoker identification and increase offering of treatment and, despite the "cold call" following a positive screen, may result in a treatment engagement rate that is higher than rates of treatment engagement previously documented in oncology settings. Longer term evaluation with formal statistical testing is needed before drawing conclusions regarding effectiveness, but PRO measurement via the EHR patient portal may serve a potentially important role in a multi-component approach to reaching and engaging cancer patients in comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment.