The Emergence of a Sustainable Tobacco Treatment Program across the Cancer Care Continuum: A Systems Approach for Implementation at the University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center

Systems approaches to scaling up: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of evidence for physical activity and other behavioural non-communicable disease risk factors

BACKGROUND

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading causes of death worldwide. Systems approaches have potential for creating sustainable outcomes at scale but have rarely been used to support scale up in physical activity/nutrition promotion or NCD prevention more generally. This review aimed to: (i) synthesise evidence on the use of systems approaches in scaling up interventions targeting four behavioural risk factors for NCDs; and (ii) to explore how systems approaches have been conceptualised and used in intervention implementation and scale up.

METHOD

Seven electronic databases were searched for studies published 2016-2021. Eligible studies targeted at least one of four NCD behavioural risk factors (physical inactivity, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, diet), or described evaluation of an intervention planned for or scaled up. Studies were categorised as having a (i) high, (ii) moderate, or (iii) no use of a systems approach. A narrative synthesis of how systems approaches had been operationalised in scale up, following PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-one intervention studies were included. Only 19% (n = 4) of interventions explicitly used systems thinking to inform intervention design, implementation and scale up (targeting all four risk factors n = 2, diet n = 1, tobacco use n = 1). Five studies ('high use') planned and implemented scale up with an explicit focus on relations between system elements and used system changes to drive impact at scale. Seven studies ('moderate use') considered systems elements impacting scale-up processes or outcomes but did not require achieving system-level changes from the outset. Nine studies ('no use') were designed to work at multiple levels among multiple agencies in an intervention setting, but the complexity of the system and relations between system elements was not articulated. We synthesised reported barriers and facilitators to scaling up, and how studies within each group conceptualised and used systems approaches, and methods, frameworks and principles for scaling up.

CONCLUSION

In physical activity research, and NCD prevention more broadly, the use of systems approaches in scale up remains in its infancy. For researchers, practitioners and policymakers wishing to adopt systems approaches to intervention implementation at scale, guidance is needed on how to communicate and operationalise systems approaches in research and in practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021287265).

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.

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.

A scoping review of implementation of health-focused interventions in vulnerable populations

Vulnerable populations face significant challenges in getting the healthcare they need. A growing body of implementation science literature has examined factors, including facilitators and barriers, relevant to accessing healthcare in these populations. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify themes relevant for improving implementation of healthcare practices and programs for vulnerable populations. This scoping review relied on the methodological framework set forth by Arksey and O’Malley, and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to evaluate and structure our findings. A framework analytic approach was used to code studies. Of the five CFIR Domains, the Inner Setting and Outer Setting were the most frequently examined in the 81 studies included. Themes that were pertinent to each domain are as follows—Inner Setting: organizational culture, leadership engagement, and integration of the intervention; Outer Setting: networks, external policies, and patients’ needs and resources; Characteristics of the Individual: knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, self-efficacy, as well as stigma (i.e., other attributes); Intervention Characteristics: complexities with staffing, cost, and adaptations; and Process: staff and patient engagement, planning, and ongoing reflection and evaluation. Key themes, including barriers and facilitators, are highlighted here as relevant to implementation of practices for vulnerable populations. These findings can inform tailoring of implementation strategies and health policies for vulnerable populations, thereby supporting more equitable healthcare.

Building staff capability, opportunity, and motivation to provide smoking cessation to people with cancer in Australian cancer treatment centres: development of an implementation intervention framework for the Care to Quit cluster randomised controlled trial

Few rigorous studies provide a clear description of the methodological approach of developing an evidence-based implementation intervention, prior to implementation at scale. This study describes the development, mapping, rating, and review of the implementation strategies for the Care to Quit smoking cessation trial, prior to application in nine cancer services across Australia. Key stakeholders were engaged in the process from conception through to rating, reviewing and refinement of strategies and principles. An initial scoping review identified 21 barriers to provision of evidence-based smoking cessation care to patients with cancer, which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify relevant intervention functions. The mapping identified 26 relevant behaviour change techniques, summarised into 11 implementation strategies. The implementation strategies were rated and reviewed against the BCW Affordability, Practicality, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, and Equity criteria by key stakeholders during two interactive workshops to facilitate a focus on feasible interventions likely to resonate with clinical staff. The implementation strategies and associated intervention tools were then collated by form and function to provide a practical guide for implementing the intervention. This study illustrates the rigorous use of theories and frameworks to arrive at a practical intervention guide, with potential to inform future replication and scalability of evidence-based implementation across a range of health service settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10742-022-00288-6.

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.

Smoking Prevalence among Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a major public health problem. Although physicians have a key role in the fight against smoking, some of them are still smoking. Thus, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of smoking among physicians.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. The prevalence of smoking among physicians was estimated and stratified, where possible, by specialties, continents, and periods of time. Then, meta-regressions were performed regarding putative influencing factors such as age and sex.

RESULTS

Among 246 studies and 497,081 physicians, the smoking prevalence among physicians was 21% (95CI 20 to 23%). Prevalence of smoking was 25% in medical students, 24% in family practitioners, 18% in surgical specialties, 17% in psychiatrists, 16% in medical specialties, 11% in anesthesiologists, 9% in radiologists, and 8% in pediatricians. Physicians in Europe and Asia had a higher smoking prevalence than in Oceania. The smoking prevalence among physicians has decreased over time. Male physicians had a higher smoking prevalence. Age did not influence smoking prevalence.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of smoking among physicians is high, around 21%. Family practitioners and medical students have the highest percentage of smokers. All physicians should benefit from targeted preventive strategies.

Integrating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Approaches Into Treatment of Commercial Tobacco Use for Optimal Cancer Care Delivery

Tobacco-related cancer incidence and mortality and commercial tobacco use have decreased steadily in recent decades, but improvements have not been equitably experienced across population subgroups. A complex interaction across socioecological domains of individual, interpersonal, community/organization, and societal/policy factors influence disparities in tobacco use, treatment, and related health outcomes. NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) provides an ideal platform to examine and intervene on multilevel influences across the cancer control continuum to reduce any disproportionate tobacco-related burden and eliminate tobacco-related disparities. The C3I Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Working Group encourages cancer centers to develop, evaluate, and adopt evidence-based practices regarding DEI for prevention and treatment of commercial tobacco use across the cancer control continuum. This paper highlights how 3 C3I sites intervene to address socioecological influences on tobacco use among racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse patient subgroups. It then outlines ways in which DEI considerations could be integrated into research with patients with cancer who use tobacco and practices related to standards of cancer care. Incorporating DEI considerations in the pursuit of optimal tobacco treatment could facilitate elimination of inequities in population-level cancer outcomes, spanning the full continuum of cancer care from prevention to survivorship.

Sustainability of Tobacco Treatment Programs in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

The NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) has a specific objective of helping cancer centers develop and implement sustainable programs to routinely address tobacco cessation with patients. Sustaining tobacco treatment programs requires the maintenance of (1) core program components, (2) ongoing implementation strategies, and (3) program outcomes evaluation. NCI funding of C3I included a commitment of resources toward sustainability. This article presents case studies to illustrate key strategies in developing sustainability capacity across 4 C3I-funded sites. Case studies are organized according to the domains of sustainability capacity defined in the Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT). We also describe the C3I Sustainability Working Group agenda to make scientific and practical contributions in 3 areas: (1) demonstrating the value of tobacco use treatment in cancer care, (2) identifying implementation strategies to support sustainability, and (3) providing evidence to inform policy changes that support the prioritization and financing of tobacco use treatment. By advancing this agenda, the Sustainability Working Group can play an active role in advancing and disseminating knowledge for tobacco treatment program sustainability to assist cancer care organizations in addressing tobacco use by patients with cancer within and beyond C3I.

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.

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 [...].