Profile of tobacco users identified in primary care practice and predictors of readiness to quit: a cross-sectional survey

A systematic review and meta-analysis of e-cigarette use among cancer survivors

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the use of e-cigarettes among cancer survivors, factors associated with their use, and prevalence of e-cigarette use as a quit attempt.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases until June 2022. Two authors independently selected studies, appraised their quality, and collected data.

RESULTS

Twenty-three publications from eight data sources (national surveys) met our eligibility criteria. The pooled rate of lifetime e-cigarette use among cancer survivors was 15% (95% CI 6-27%); current use was 3% (95% CI 0-8%). Among survivors who currently used traditional cigarettes, 63% (95% CI 57-69%) also used e-cigarettes. The reported rates of weighted lifetime e-cigarette use differed between age groups (18-44 years, up to 46.7%; 45-64, up to 27.2%; ≥65, up to 24.8%). Nine publications reported factors associated with lifetime e-cigarette use (i.e., active use of traditional cigarettes; heavy drinking; poor mental health; younger age; being male, non-Hispanic White, or single; having less than high school education or income ≤$25,000 USD; and living in the South regions of the US or urban areas). E-cigarettes were used as a quit resource by 75% of survivors reporting dual use of electronic and traditional cigarettes (95% CI 63%, 85%).

CONCLUSION

More than two-thirds of survivors currently using traditional cigarettes also use e-cigarettes. Higher use rates of e-cigarettes were reported among young cancer survivors compared to older survivors. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of e-cigarettes on long-term health and improve screening of smoking behaviors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Our study provides an overview of the prevalence of e-cigarette use and sociodemographic risk factors associated with e-cigarette use among cancer survivors. The findings can assist providers in supporting attempts to quit among cancer survivors.

Expanding population-level interventions to help more low-income smokers quit: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low-income Americans have higher rates of smoking and a greater burden of smoking-related disease. In the United States, smokers in every state can access evidence-based telephone counseling through free tobacco quitlines. However, quitlines target smokers who are ready to quit in the next 30 days, which can exclude many low-income smokers. A smoke-free homes intervention may help engage smokers in tobacco control services who are not yet ready to quit. Previous research in low-income populations suggests that receiving a smoke-free homes intervention is associated with higher quit rates. This study tests whether, at a population level, expanding on quitlines to include a smoke-free homes intervention for smokers not ready to quit could engage more low-income smokers and increase long-term cessation rates.

METHODS

In a Hybrid Type 2 design, participants are recruited from 211 helplines in 9 states and randomly assigned to standard quitline or quitline plus smoke-free homes intervention arms. Participants in both arms are initially offered quitline services. In the quitline plus smoke-free homes condition, participants who decline the quitline are then offered a smoke-free homes intervention. Participants complete a baseline and follow-up surveys at 3 and 6 months. Those who have not yet quit at the 3-month follow-up are re-offered the interventions, which differ by study arm. The primary study outcome is self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This real-world cessation trial involving 9 state tobacco quitlines will help inform whether offering smoke-free homes as an alternative intervention could engage more low-income smokers with evidence-based interventions and increase overall cessation rates. This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Study Identifier: NCT04311983).

Tobacco quitline performance: Comparing the impacts of early cessation and proactive re-engagement on callers' smoking status at follow-up at 12 months

INTRODUCTION

While tobacco Quitlines are effective in the promotion of smoking cessation, the majority of callers who wish to quit still fail to do so. The aim of this study was to determine if 12-month tobacco Quitline smoking cessation rates could be improved with re-engagement of callers whose first Quitline treatment failed to establish abstinence.

METHODS

In an adaptive trial, 614 adult smokers, who were active duty, retired, and family of military personnel with TRICARE insurance who called a tobacco Quitline, received a previously evaluated and efficacious four-session tobacco cessation intervention with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). At the scheduled follow-up at 3 months, callers who had not yet achieved abstinence were offered the opportunity to re-engage. This resulted in three caller groups: 1) those who were abstinent, 2) those who were still smoking but willing to re-engage with an additional Quitline treatment; and 3) individuals who were still smoking but declined re-engagement. A propensity score-adjusted logistic regression model was generated to compare past-7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months post Quitline consultation.

RESULTS

Using a propensity score adjusted logistic regression model, comparison of the three groups resulted in higher odds of past-7-day point prevalence abstinence at follow-up at 12 months for those who were abstinent at 3 months compared to those who re-engaged (OR=9.6; 95% CI: 5.2-17.8; Bonferroni adjusted p<0.0001), and relative to those who declined re-engagement (OR=13.4; 95% CI: 6.8-26.3; Bonferroni adjusted p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in smoking abstinence between smokers at 3 months who re-engaged and those who declined re-engagement (OR=1.39; 95% CI: 0.68-2.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco Quitlines seeking to select a single initiative by which to maximize abstinence at follow-up at 12 months may benefit from diverting additional resources from the re-engagement of callers whose initial quit attempt failed, toward changes which increase callers' probability of success within the first 3 months of treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02201810).

Supporting cancer patients quit smoking: the initial evaluation of our tobacco cessation intervention program

Background:

Tobacco is a known addictive consumer product and its use has been reported to be associated with several health problems as well as the leading cause of premature, preventable mortality worldwide. For patients undergoing cancer treatment, tobacco smoking can potentially compromise treatment effectiveness; however, there is sufficient evidence suggesting numerous health benefits of smoking cessation interventions for cancer patients.

Methods:

The Grand River Regional Cancer Centre (GRRCC) smoking cessation program began in October 2013 to provide evidence-based intensive tobacco intervention to patients. All new patients are screened for tobacco use and those identified as active smokers are advised of the benefits of cessation and offered referral to the program where a cessation nurse offers counseling. Patients’ disease site, initial cessation goal, quit date, number of quit attempts and mode of contact are collected by the cessation nurse. This study reports on the initial evaluation of the smoking cessation program activities at GRRCC.

Results:

There are 1,210 patients who were screened, accepted a referral and counseled in the program. The referral pattern shows a modest increase every year and most of the patients (58%) indicated readiness to quit smoking. Overall, 29 and 26% of patients either quit or cut-back smoking, respectively. Among 348 patients who quit smoking, 300 (86%) were able to quit at the first attempt. The data indicated that 309 (44%) out of the 698 patients who indicated their initial intent to quit smoking were able to quit, whereas about 242 (35%) were able to cutback. A total of 15 patients out of 32 who indicated initial readiness to ‘cutback’ smoking were able to reduce tobacco use and three patients actually ended up quitting, although their initial goal was ‘ready-to-cut-back’.

Conclusions:

GRRCC smoking cessation program started in October 2013 to provide evidence-based intensive smoking cessation interventions for patients with cancer. Most patients referred to the program indicated a readiness to quit smoking affirming that if patients become aware of the various risks associated with continual smoking or if they are informed of the benefits associated with cessation with regard to their treatment, they will be more likely to decide to quit. Therefore, it is essential that patients, their partners and families are counseled on the health and treatment benefits of smoking cessation and sustainable programs should be available to support them to quit smoking. It is imperative then, that oncology programs should consistently identify and document the smoking status of cancer patients and support those who use tobacco at the time of diagnosis to quit. Evidence-based smoking cessation intervention should be sustainably integrated into the cancer care continuum in all oncology programs from prevention of cancer through diagnosis, treatment, survivorship and palliative care.

Use of Smoking Cessation Aids in a Convenience Sample of PLHIV in a Canadian Tertiary Care Clinic

Background:

Tobacco smoking is among the most significant predictors of cardiovascular disease and lung cancer in People Living with HIV (PLHIV). Smoking rates in this population are high, necessitating more effective smoking cessation strategies. We conducted a descriptive analysis of tobacco-related clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of smokers at a tertiary care HIV clinic in Montreal and an exploratory analysis of smoking cessation methods in order to identify potential areas of improvement in the clinic’s approach to smoking cessation.

Methods:

A convenience sample of patients completed a 10-minute questionnaire on tobacco-related behaviours and outcomes. Use of smoking cessation methods was compared using McNemar’s exact test with a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing (p<0.01 considered significant).

Results:

Seventy-two PLHIV participated. Two-thirds of our total participants were interested in quitting within six months, but the use of effective cessation strategies was low, particularly for counseling and oral therapy. Overall, oral therapy (e.g. varenicline) (16.7%) and counseling for cessation (5.6%) were used less than nicotine patches (50.0%) or ‘other’ methods (50.0%), which included abstinence and nicotine gum (p<0.001).

Conclusion:

Despite a small and potentially unrepresentative sample of HIV positive tobacco smokers at our clinic, this study could help guide further research aiming to determine and address barriers to smoking cessation and access to effective smoking cessation aids in PLHIV. Future studies might consider factors that affect motivation to quit, such as co-morbid mental health and substance use disorders, or the attitudes of HIV healthcare providers.

Why Don't Cancer Survivors Quit Smoking? An Evaluation of Readiness for Smoking Cessation in Cancer Survivors

Background

Cancer survivors have a high rate of participation in cigarette-smoking cessation programs but their smoking-abstinence rates remain low. In the current study, we evaluated the readiness to quit smoking in a cancer-survivor population.

Methods

Cross-sectional data survey conducted among 112 adult cancer survivors who smoked cigarettes in Tennessee. Analyses were conducted using a two-sample t-test, χ² test, Fishers Exact test, and multivariable logistic regression with smoker’s readiness to quit as the dependent variable. We operationally defined a smoker not ready to quit as anyone interested in quitting smoking beyond the next 6 months or longer (or not at all), as compared to those that are ready to quit within the next 6 months.

Results

Thirty-three percent of participants displayed a readiness to quit smoking in the next 30 days. Smokers ready to quit were more likely to display high confidence in their ability to quit (OR = 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1–9.7; P < 0.0001) than those not ready to quit. Those ready to quit were nearly five times more likely to believe smoking contributed to their cancer diagnosis (OR = 4.9; 95% CI, 1.1–22.6; P = 0.0432). Those ready to quit were also much more likely to attempt smoking cessation when diagnosed with cancer (OR = 8.9; 95% CI, 1.8–44.3; P = 0.0076) than smokers not ready to quit. Finally, those ready to quit were more likely to endorse smoking more in the morning than other times of the day, compared to those not ready to quit (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 1.5–42,3; P = 0.0148), which increased odds of readiness to quit within the next 6 months.

Conclusions

Despite high participation in smoking-cessation programs for cancer survivors, only one-third of participants were ready to quit. Future research is needed to develop programs targeting effective strategies promoting smoking cessation among cancer survivors who are both ready and not ready to quit smoking.