Integration of Tobacco Treatment Services into Cancer Care at Stanford

Adding Virtual Reality Mindful Exposure Therapy to a Cancer Center's Tobacco Treatment Offerings: Feasibility and Acceptability Single-Group Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Smoking contributes to 1 in 3 cancer deaths. At the Stanford Cancer Center, tobacco cessation medication management and counseling are provided as a covered benefit. Patients charted as using tobacco are contacted by a tobacco treatment specialist and offered cessation services. As a novel addition, this study examined the acceptability of a virtual reality (VR) mindful exposure therapy app for quitting smoking called MindCotine.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of offering 6 weeks of MindCotine treatment as a part of Stanford's Tobacco Treatment Services for patients seen for cancer care.

METHODS

As part of a single-group pilot study, the MindCotine VR program was offered to English- or Spanish-speaking patients interested in quitting smoking. Given the visual interface, epilepsy was a medical exclusion. Viewed from a smartphone with an attachable VR headset, MindCotine provides a digital environment with audiovisual content guiding mindfulness exercises (eg, breathing techniques, body awareness, and thought recognition), text-based coaching, and cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-reflections for quitting smoking. Interested patients providing informed consent were mailed a MindCotine headset and asked to use the app for 10+ minutes a day. At the end of 6 weeks, participants completed a feedback survey.

RESULTS

Of the 357 patients reached by the tobacco treatment specialist, 62 (17.3%) were ineligible, 190 (53.2%) were not interested in tobacco treatment services, and 78 (21.8%) preferred other tobacco treatment services. Among the 105 eligible and interested in assistance with quitting, 27 (25.7%) were interested in MindCotine, of whom 20 completed the informed consent, 9 used the program, and 8 completed their end-of-treatment survey. Participants using MindCotine completed, on average, 13 (SD 20.2) program activities, 19 (SD 26) journal records, and 11 (SD 12.3) coaching engagements. Of the 9 participants who used MindCotine, 4 (44%) reported some dizziness with app use that resolved and 7 (78%) would recommend MindCotine to a friend. In total, 2 participants quit tobacco (22.2% reporting, 10% overall), 2 others reduced their smoking by 50% or more, and 2 quit for 24 hours and then relapsed.

CONCLUSIONS

In a feasibility and acceptability pilot study of a novel VR tobacco treatment app offered to patients at a cancer center, 4 of 9 (44%) reporting and 4 of 20 (20%) overall substantially reduced or quit using tobacco after 6 weeks and most would recommend the app to others. Further testing on a larger sample is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05220254; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05220254.

Predictors of Patient Engagement in Telehealth-Delivered Tobacco Cessation Treatment during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Smoking causes one in three cancer deaths and may worsen COVID-19 outcomes. Telehealth tobacco cessation treatment is offered as a covered benefit for patients at the Stanford Cancer Center. We examined predictors of engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were abstracted from the Electronic Health Record between 3/17/20 (start of pandemic shelter-in-place) and 9/20/22, including patient tobacco use, demographics, and engagement in cessation treatment. Importance of quitting tobacco was obtained for a subset (53%). During the first 2.5 years of the pandemic, 2595 patients were identified as recently using tobacco, and 1571 patients were contacted (61%). Of the 1313 patients still using tobacco (40% women, mean age 59, 66% White, 13% Hispanic), 448 (34%) enrolled in treatment. Patient engagement was greater in pandemic year 1 (42%) than in year 2 (28%) and year 3 (19%). Women (41%) engaged more than men (30%). Patients aged 36-45 (39%), 46-55 (43%), 56-65 (37%), and 66-75 (33%) engaged more than patients aged 18-35 (18%) and >75 (21%). Hispanic/Latinx patients (42%) engaged more than non-Hispanic/Latinx patients (33%). Engagement was not statistically significantly related to patient race. Perceived importance of quitting tobacco was significantly lower in pandemic year 1 than year 2 or 3. Nearly one in three cancer patients engaged in telehealth cessation treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Engagement was greater earlier in the pandemic, among women, Hispanic/Latinx individuals, and patients aged 36 to 75. Sheltering-in-place, rather than greater perceived risk, may have facilitated patient engagement in tobacco cessation treatment.

Strategic use of tobacco treatment specialists as an innovation for tobacco cessation health systems change within health care organizations

BACKGROUND

Tobacco screening interventions have demonstrated effectiveness at improving population health, yet many people who want to quit using tobacco lack access to professional assistance. One way to address this gap is to train members of the clinical team as tobacco treatment specialists (TTSs).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to understand how TTSs have been used across a variety of health care organizations implementing health systems change for tobacco treatment and examine the sustainability of TTSs as a health systems change innovation for tobacco cessation.

METHODOLOGY

This study used qualitative interviews ( n = 25) to identify themes related to implementing TTSs as a health systems change innovation and examined these themes within the constructs of the theory of innovation implementation.

RESULTS

Insights about implementing TTSs as an innovation primarily aligned with four theoretical constructs: implementation policies and practices, implementation climate, innovation-values fit, and implementation effectiveness. Specific themes were perceived to facilitate the sustainability of TTSs including team-based TTS efforts, widespread awareness of TTS roles, leadership buy-in, and recognized value of TTS services. Barriers to sustainability included inadequate resources (e.g., time and staff), lack of tracking outcomes, inappropriate referrals, and lack of reimbursement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health care organizations planning to implement health systems change for tobacco cessation can encourage committed use of TTSs as an innovation by considering the insights provided in this study. These primarily related to five overarching implementation considerations: staff selection and training, tracking and dissemination of impacts, adequate resources, referrals and workflow, and billing and reimbursement.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Smokers Diagnosed with Cancer

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

Reducing stigma triggered by assessing smoking status among patients diagnosed with lung cancer: De-stigmatizing do and don't lessons learned from qualitative interviews

Objective

To characterize lung cancer patients' reactions to cancer care providers' (CCPs) assessment of smoking behavior and to develop recommendations to reduce stigma and improve patient-clinician communication about smoking in the context of lung cancer care.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with 56 lung cancer patients (Study 1) and focus groups with 11 lung cancer patients (Study 2) were conducted and analyzed using thematic content analysis.

Results

Three broad themes were identified: cursory questions about smoking history and current behavior; stigma triggered by assessment of smoking behavior; and recommended dos and don'ts for CCPs treating patients with lung cancer. CCP communication that contributed to patients' comfort included responding in an empathic manner and using supportive verbal and non-verbal communication skills. Blaming statements, doubting patients' self-reported smoking status, insinuating subpar care, nihilistic statements, and avoidant behaviors contributed to patients' discomfort.

Conclusions

Patients often experienced stigma in response to smoking-related discussions with their CCPs and identified several communication strategies that CCPs can use to improve patients' comfort within these clinical encounters.

Innovation

These patient perspectives advance the field by providing specific communication recommendations that CCPs can adopt to mitigate stigma and enhance lung cancer patients' comfort, particularly when taking a routine smoking history.

A Daily Assessment Study of Smoking Cessation After a Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

This intensive longitudinal study describes key events in the process of smoking cessation after a new head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis. Prior longitudinal studies show some cancer patients quit, while others continue to smoke, but details about the pattern in which these discrete outcomes arise are scarce. This study is meant to help rectify this gap in the literature.

AIMS AND METHODS

Participants were 42 HNC patients who reported current smoking at enrollment. Participants were recruited from an outpatient oncology clinic and completed a baseline questionnaire prior to begin a 30-day daily assessment.

RESULTS

Few participants (9.52%) achieved 30-day continuous abstinence from smoking. On average, participants reported 9.64 ± 11.93 total days of abstinence. Nearly, all (94.44%, n = 34) participants made at least one quit attempt, with an average of 16.94 ± 11.30 quit attempt days. Fewer participants were able to achieve a 24-hour quit attempt (52.78%, n = 19), with a corresponding average of 5.50 ± 8.69 24-hour days. The median time to first 24-hour quit attempt was 13 days after enrollment. Based on smoking behavioral patterns, participants were categorized into five groups, the most common being "persistent attempters," which involved unsuccessful quit attempts throughout the study. Only 45% of participants (n = 19) used evidence-based treatment, the most common being cessation medication.

CONCLUSIONS

This intensive longitudinal study found that cancer diagnosis can spur a lot of efforts to quit smoking. Unfortunately, this study suggests that many quit attempts are short lived, possibly a result of an absence or insufficient use of evidence-based treatments.

IMPLICATIONS

For adults who are current smokers at the time of cancer diagnosis, there is a high likelihood of persistent cigarette smoking and use of other tobacco products in the weeks and months after a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, this study shows that while a lot of quit attempts may occur, few are successful, which may be partly attributable to the low use of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Future research with cancer patients should aim to identify predictors of quit attempts and abstinence as well as treatment utilization.

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

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

Investigating documentation of alcohol and non-medical substance use in oncology treatment: an electronic health record review

PURPOSE

Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use).

CONCLUSIONS

About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment.

Smoking Cessation Training and Treatment: Options for Cancer Centres

Patients who achieve smoking cessation following a cancer diagnosis can experience an improvement in treatment response and lower morbidity and mortality compared to individuals who continue to smoke. It is therefore imperative for publicly funded cancer centres to provide appropriate training and education for healthcare providers (HCP) and treatment options to support smoking cessation for their patients. However, system-, practitioner-, and patient-level barriers exist that hamper the integration of evidence-based cessation programs within publicly funded cancer centres. The integration of evidence-based smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy into cancer care facilities could have a significant effect on smoking cessation and cancer treatment outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to describe the elements of a learning health system for smoking cessation, implemented and scaled up in community settings that can be adapted for ambulatory cancer clinics. The core elements include appropriate workflows enabled by technology, thereby improving both practitioner and patient experience and effectively removing practitioner-level barriers to program implementation. Integrating the smoking cessation elements of this program from primary care to cancer centres could improve smoking cessation outcomes in patients attending cancer clinics.

Tobacco Use and Tobacco Treatment Referral Response of Patients With Cancer: Implementation Outcomes at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center

PURPOSE

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis is linked to cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, among other adverse outcomes. Yet, 10%-20% of US cancer survivors are current smokers. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco treatment in cancer care facilities is widely recommended, yet rarely accomplished. This study focuses on the early outcomes of a population-based tobacco treatment program integrated within an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The sample consists of 26,365 patients seen at the cancer center during the first 18 months of program implementation. The study is a retrospective chart review of patients' tobacco use and, among current users, patients' treatment referral response.

RESULTS

More than 99% of patients were screened for tobacco use. Current (past month) use was observed in 21.05% of patients; cigarettes were the most popular product. Only 17.22% of current users accepted a referral for tobacco treatment; among current users who declined, the majority were not ready to quit (65.84%) or wanted to quit on their own (27.01%). Multiple demographic variables were associated with tobacco use and treatment referral response outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Despite cancer diagnosis presenting a teachable moment for tobacco cessation, patients with cancer may not be ready to quit or engage with treatment. Clinically proven strategies to increase motivation, prompt quit attempts, and encourage treatment use should be key components of tobacco treatment delivery to patients with cancer.

Demographic and Clinical Predictors of Engaging in Tobacco Cessation Counseling at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

PURPOSE

To address challenges promoting tobacco cessation in oncology settings, it is important to understand characteristics associated with patient engagement in tobacco cessation treatment. This analysis examined predictors of participating in at least one tobacco cessation counseling session among patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center's Tobacco Intervention and Psychosocial Support (TIPS) service.

METHODS

Patients with cancer who reported current smoking or recently quitting and referred to TIPS between June 2017 and February 2020 were included in the analysis. Independent variables included sex, race and ethnicity, insurance type, cancer diagnosis (tobacco-related or not), age, nicotine dependence, and cigarettes smoked per day at baseline. The outcome variable was completion of at least one tobacco cessation counseling session among those assessed by the TIPS program. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses tested associations between the independent variables and tobacco cessation counseling engagement.

RESULTS

Of 360 oncology patients referred to the TIPS program, 224 (62.2%) were assessed and 120 (33%) engaged in at least one counseling session. After controlling for sociodemographics and tobacco use, the results demonstrated that patients diagnosed with tobacco-related cancers were 45.3% less likely to engage in the tobacco cessation program compared with those with non-tobacco-related cancers (P = .041).

CONCLUSION

Patients diagnosed with tobacco-related cancers were less likely to engage in TIPS. Additional therapeutic resources may be needed to engage these patients to address potential explanatory factors, such as stigma, guilt, and fatalism. More research is needed to explore the impact of a tobacco-related cancer diagnosis on treatment engagement.

Implementation strategies for integrating tobacco cessation treatment in cancer care: A qualitative study

Purpose

The objective of this study was to determine how to optimize implementation of tobacco cessation treatment interventions in cancer care by (1) investigating the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-level approach to tobacco cessation treatment intervention, (2) identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (3) eliciting additional strategies to improve implementation of the intervention.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews with oncologists (n = 15) from one large academic health center in the Southeastern United States. We asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and current practices regarding tobacco use screening and treatment. We also asked about two proposed strategies to support implementation of tobacco cessation treatment: (1) developing a registry of tobacco users in collaboration with the state-run tobacco cessation program, and (2) providing on-site tobacco cessation counseling from trained professionals.

Results

Oncologists saw addressing tobacco use as valuable; however, they felt restricted from consistently addressing tobacco use by multi-level barriers such as workload, electronic health record (EHR) design, patient anxiety, and low self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence. Oncologists responded positively to on-site treatment and felt this strategy would increase treatment accessibility and enhance engagement. Reaction to developing a registry of tobacco users was mixed, with concerns regarding lack of oncologist involvement and patient privacy expressed. Other suggested strategies for supporting implementation of tobacco cessation treatment included reducing referral complexity, establishing financial or quality incentives for oncologists, and leveraging existing EHR tools to facilitate integration of cessation interventions into clinic workflows.

Conclusion

We identified several challenges to implementing tobacco use treatment in cancer care; however, we considered strategies to overcome these barriers that were viewed as feasible and acceptable. Our work highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders in implementation efforts. Future work should explore the impact of the implementation strategies identified in this study.

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.

Tobacco Use and Treatment among Cancer Survivors

Tobacco use is causally associated with the risk of developing multiple health conditions, including over a dozen types of cancer, and is responsible for 30% of cancer deaths in the U [...].

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.

Design and Pilot Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based System to Automatically Refer Cancer Patients to Tobacco Use Treatment

Continued tobacco use after cancer diagnosis is detrimental to treatment and survivorship. The current reach of evidence-based tobacco treatments in cancer patients is low. As a part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center designed an electronic health record (EHR, Epic^©)-based process to automatically refer ambulatory oncology patients to tobacco use treatment, regardless of intent to cease tobacco use(“opt out”). The referral and patient scheduling, accomplished through a best practice advisory (BPA) directed to staff who room patients, does not require a co-signature from clinicians. This process was piloted for a six-week period starting in July of 2019 at the Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. All oncology patients who were tobacco users were referred for tobacco treatment by the rooming staff (n = 210). Of these, 150 (71%) had a tobacco treatment appointment scheduled, and 25 (17%) completed their appointment. We conclude that an EHR-based “opt-out” approach to refer patients to tobacco dependence treatment that does not require active involvement by clinicians is feasible within the oncology clinical practice. Further work is needed to increase the proportion of scheduled patients who attend their appointments.