Building Systems to Address Tobacco Use in Oncology: Early Benefits and Opportunities From the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Understanding cancer patients' desire to quit tobacco without assistance: A mixed-methods study

While many cancer patients who use tobacco try to quit post-diagnosis, some prefer to quit without using tobacco treatment, despite evidence against unassisted quit attempts. This study aimed to understand the rationale for some cancer patients' desire to quit tobacco without assistance. Thirty-five adult cancer patients who currently used tobacco and declined tobacco treatment because of the desire to quit unassisted provided data via a standardized questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. The sample was predominately White, non-Hispanic (85.71%) and female (68.57%). The most common cancer site was gynecological. Key themes that emerged from the interviews were: self-reliance, willpower, social norms, and negative attitudes toward tobacco treatment. The most frequently endorsed barrier to tobacco treatment was "I know others who have quit without tobacco treatment" (82.86%). This study with cancer patients identified affective, cognitive, and personality factors related to quitting unassisted, and social and systemic reasons to not use tobacco treatment.

Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Testing Behavioral Economic Implementation Strategies to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Patients With Cancer Who Smoke

PURPOSE

Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology.

METHODS

We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model.

RESULTS

From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P < .0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P < .0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

EHR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.

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.

Prevalence of smoking cigarettes and beliefs regarding smoking habits among medical students: a cross-sectional study in Sudan

Background

Smoking is a common problem in university students worldwide. Smoking is one of the most dangerous social phenomena and has a significant impact on public health. This study investigated the beliefs and attitudes of medical students toward smoking in Sudan.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among medical students at Al Neelain University, Sudan, from March to June 2022 using a web-based questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of eight items on demographic characteristics and 13 on the beliefs and attitudes toward smoking. Other data included smoking status, smoking habits, the number of cigarettes smoked per day, and smoking duration. Data analysis was performed descriptively, and chi-square test and logistic regression were conducted using SPSS version 24. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

Results

A total of 336 students participated in this study, and the smoking prevalence was 48.8% (41.1% in men and 7.7% in women). In total, 76.8% reported smoking daily at a rate of 5-10 cigarettes per day. In terms of students' beliefs about smoking, 86.8% disagreed with selling cigarettes at the university. Of the respondents, 68.4% did not approve smoking on campus. There was a relationship between smoking habits and the age group of 22-25 years, which was the highest smoking category among students (p-value = 0.01).

Conclusion

The prevalence of cigarette smoking among medical students is disturbing, particularly as they are future doctors. There is a need to include plans to reduce smoking among students that can be incorporated into courses and special programs.

The Use of Biomarkers to Guide Precision Treatment for Tobacco Use

This review summarizes the evidence to date on the development of biomarkers for personalizing the pharmacological treatment of combustible tobacco use. First, the latest evidence on FDA-approved medications is considered, demonstrating that, while these medications offer real benefits, they do not contribute to smoking cessation in approximately two-thirds of cases. Second, the case for using biomarkers to guide tobacco treatment is made based on the potential to increase medication effectiveness and uptake and reduce side effects. Next, the FDA framework of biomarker development is presented along with the state of science on biomarkers for tobacco treatment, including a review of the nicotine metabolite ratio, electroencephalographic event-related potentials, and other biomarkers utilized for risk feedback. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities for the translation of biomarkers to guide tobacco treatment and propose priorities for future research.

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers.

EXPOSURES

Intensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios).

RESULTS

The per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

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.

Rate and correlates of tobacco treatment during a primary care visit for a largely urban and African American sample of smokers

Introduction

Evidence-based treatments for tobacco use are under-utilized and primary care visits may be an opportune time to address this gap. This study examined the rate at which primary care visits included tobacco use treatment and examined patient demographics, smoking characteristics, attitudes about tobacco use treatments, and comorbidities as correlates of treatment provision.

Methods

This prospective study assessed demographics, smoking characteristics, attitudes about tobacco use treatments, and comorbidities via interview prior to a primary care visit among 105 patients. One week following the appointment, 85 patients were reassessed for the tobacco use treatments they received during their appointment (i.e., asked about their tobacco use, advised to quit, and provided with a referral to a tobacco use treatment program or an FDA-approved tobacco use medication).

Results

93% of patients were asked about their tobacco use, 74% were advised to quit, 37% were provided with a referral for tobacco use treatment, and 27% received an FDA-approved medication (16% NRT, 11% varenicline or bupropion). Patients with higher quit motivation and who endorsed that medications can reduce cravings were more likely to report receiving tobacco use medication. Patients with a self-reported substance abuse history were less likely to report receiving tobacco use medications.

Conclusions

The provision of tobacco use medications within primary care remains low. Strategies to increase patient quit motivation and help patients understand that tobacco use medications can mitigate cravings may increase use. Strategies may also be needed to ensure that patients with comorbid substance abuse still receive tobacco use treatments.

Time to put it out - nurse-facilitated tobacco treatment in a comprehensive cancer center

Few cancer patients receive guideline-concordant care for treatment of tobacco dependence. The purpose of this pilot trial was to obtain preliminary estimates of effectiveness of an evidence-based practice intervention on the delivery of tobacco treatment and cessation outcomes in cancer patients. We conducted a pragmatic implementation trial with a before-after design in 119 current or recently quit adult smokers with cancer who met with a clinician at a single National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center (CCC) (n = 61 pre-implementation, n = 58 post-implementation). We used a multi-component strategy based on the Chronic Care Model to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation counseling during the index visit was assessed by exit interview and patients were interviewed by phone to assess cessation outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Performance of cessation counseling and 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) were compared across the pre- and post-implementation periods using log-logistic regression, accounting for clustering by nursing staff. More patients had received assistance in quitting at the index visit during the post-implementation period compared to the pre-implementation period (30 vs. 10%, p < .01). At 3-month follow-up, 38 and 14% of participants had discussed smoking cessation medication with a CCC healthcare professional and 57 and 27% of participants had used pharmacotherapy, respectively (p < .01 for both comparisons). Seven-day PPA at 3-month follow-up was similar in both periods, however (14 vs. 12%, respectively). A multi-component tobacco treatment intervention increased the proportion of smokers who received assistance in quitting smoking during usual cancer care but did not improve cessation outcomes.

Rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve tobacco treatment rates for cancer patients who smoke

BACKGROUND

Routine evidence-based tobacco use treatment minimizes cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and improves quality of life among patients receiving cancer care. Few cancer centers employ mechanisms to systematically refer patients to evidence-based tobacco cessation services. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics can increase tobacco use treatment engagement within oncology care.

METHODS

A four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial will be conducted across nine clinical sites within the Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control Implementation Lab to compare the effect of behavioral economic implementation strategies delivered through embedded messages (or "nudges") promoting patient engagement with the Tobacco Use Treatment Service (TUTS). Nudges are electronic medical record (EMR)-based messages delivered to patients, clinicians, or both, designed to counteract known patient and clinician biases that reduce treatment engagement. We used rapid cycle approaches (RCA) informed by relevant stakeholder experiences to refine and optimize our implementation strategies and methods prior to trial initiation. Data will be obtained via the EMR, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients. The primary measure of implementation is penetration, defined as the TUTS referral rate. Secondary outcome measures of implementation include patient treatment engagement (defined as the number of patients who receive FDA-approved medication or behavioral counseling), quit attempts, and abstinence rates. The semi-structured interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, will assess contextual factors and patient and clinician experiences with the nudges.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first in the oncology setting to compare the effectiveness of nudges to clinicians and patients, both head-to-head and in combination, as implementation strategies to improve TUTS referral and engagement. We expect the study to (1) yield insights into the effectiveness of nudges as an implementation strategy to improve uptake of evidence-based tobacco use treatment within cancer care, and (2) advance our understanding of the multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. These results will lay the foundation for how patients with cancer who smoke are best engaged in tobacco use treatment and may lead to future research focused on scaling this approach across diverse centers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04737031 . Registered 3 February 2021.

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.