An Implementation Trial to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Cancer Patients: Patient Preferences, Treatment Acceptability and Effectiveness

Supporting Smokers in Difficult Settings: Suggestions for Better Education and Counseling in Cancer Centers in Jordan

Continued smoking in cancer patients is commonly observed in Jordan. In a country that exhibits some of the highest smoking rates globally, enhancing patient education regarding the value of smoking cessation for cancer care is vital. The objectives of our study were to describe sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with continued smoking in Jordanian smokers after a cancer diagnosis; to identify reasons for smoking and knowledge regarding smoking's impact on care; to examine in a multivariable manner the factors associated with continued smoking, and to accordingly generate patient counseling recommendations. An interviewer-administered survey using the Theoretical Domains Framework was employed. Among 350 subjects (mean age 51.0, median 52.7), approximately 38% of patients had quit or were in the process of quitting; 61.7% remained smokers. Substantial knowledge gaps with regard to the impact of continued smoking on cancer care were observed. Remaining a smoker after diagnosis was associated with being employed, not receiving chemotherapy or surgery, having lower confidence in quitting, and having a lower number of identified reasons for smoking. Interventions to promote cessation in Jordanian cancer patients who smoke should focus on enhancing patient awareness about the impact of smoking in cancer care and raising perceived self-efficacy to quit.

Feasibility of Patient Navigation-Based Smoking Cessation Program in Cancer Patients

Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis is causally associated with increased risks of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality, and of smoking-related second primary cancers. Patient navigation provides individualized assistance to address barriers to smoking cessation treatment and represents a promising bridge to smoking cessation in persons with cancer who smoke cigarettes. We conducted a single-arm interventional cohort study of current smokers identified through prospective health record screening and recruited from Penn State Cancer Institute outpatient clinics. Consented participants received two telephone intervention sessions and gain-framed messaging-based smoking cessation educational materials designed for persons with cancer. The primary study outcome was the feasibility of the patient navigation-based intervention; the secondary outcome was the engagement in smoking cessation treatment at the two-month follow-up. Of 1168 unique screened Cancer Institute patients, 134 (11.5%) were identified as current cigarette smokers. Among 67 patients approached at outpatient clinics, 24 (35.8%) were interested in participating, 12 (17.9%) were enrolled, eight (11.9%) completed the intervention sessions and study assessments, and six engaged in smoking cessation treatment. The participants expressed satisfaction with the intervention sessions (median = 8.5, scale 0–10). The low recruitment rates preclude patient navigation as a feasible method for connecting cancer patients to smoking cessation treatment resources.

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.

Implementing a 3As and 'Opt-Out' Tobacco Cessation Framework in an Outpatient Oncology Setting

Tobacco cessation has been recognized as an important goal for all ambulatory cancer centres to provide the best possible treatment outcomes and quality of life. However, cessation interventions are applied inconsistently in this setting, with less than one-half of tobacco users being offered evidence-based interventions. The ‘opt-in’ approach traditionally used in cessation, which targets patients who feel ready to quit, may limit the number of patients who are able to receive treatment, and evidence suggests that tobacco users quit at the same rate regardless of their perceived readiness. This paper reports the results of implementing a tobacco cessation framework utilizing the 3As and an ‘opt-out’ approach as a standard of cancer care at a Regional Cancer Centre. A comparison of data from 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 demonstrated an increase in the number of patients screened for tobacco use (76.9% to 90.1%, respectively), and in the number of accepted referrals to quit support (11.5% to 34.7%, respectively). The revised framework was effective at improving referral acceptance rates, despite tobacco use rates remaining stable among the two groups. This demonstrates that employing the ‘opt-out’ approach is a more effective strategy to connect patients with the smoking cessation supports required to optimize their cancer care.

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 [...].

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.