A Prospective Observational Study of Physical Activity Levels and Physical Fitness of People at High Risk for Lung Cancer.

Introduction: Physical activity (PA) is a potentially modifiable risk factor for lung cancer, with previous research revealing that people who engage in more PA have lower risk of developing lung cancer. PA levels of lung cancer screening participants have not previously been explored. Methods: Participants at a single Australian International Lung Screen Trial site were eligible for assessment of self-reported PA levels (International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly) and physical assessments (6-min walk distance, hand grip muscle strength, daily step count, and body composition) at a single time point during lung cancer screening. Statistics were predominantly descriptive, with parametric data presented as mean and SD and nonparametric data presented as median and interquartile range (IQR). Results: A total of 178 participants were enrolled in this study, with a median age of 61 years. Of the participants, 61% were men and 51% were people who currently smoke. The median total International Physical Activity Questionnaire score was 1756 MET/min/wk (IQR 689, 4049). Mean total Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly score was 160 (SD 72), higher than described in healthy sedentary adults. The median daily step count was 7237 steps (IQR 5353, 10,038) and mean 6-minute walk distance was 545 m (SD 92). Median grip strengths were within predicted normal range, with an elevated median percentage body fat and low skeletal muscle mass found on body composition. Conclusion: Almost a quarter of International Lung Screen Trial participants assessed reported low levels of PA and have a potentially modifiable risk factor to improve health outcomes. Larger studies are needed to characterize the burden of inactivity among high-risk lung cancer screening populations.

Validation of the psychosocial consequences of screening in lung cancer questionnaire in the international lung screen trial Australian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of psychosocial consequences of lung cancer screening with LDCT in high-risk populations has generally been performed using generic psychometric instruments. Such generic instruments have low coverage and low power to detect screening impacts. This study aims to validate an established lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences Of Screening Lung Cancer (COS-LC), in Australian-English and describe early results from the baseline LDCT round of the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST). METHODS: The Danish-version COS-LC was translated to Australian-English using the double panel method and field tested in Australian-ILST participants to examine content validity. A random sample of 200 participants were used to assess construct validity using Rasch item response theory models. Reliability was assessed using classical test theory. The COS-LC was administered to ILST participants at prespecified timepoints including at enrolment, dependent of screening results. RESULTS: Minor linguistic alterations were made after initial translation of COS-LC to English. The COS-LC demonstrated good content validity and adequate construct validity using psychometric analysis. The four core scales fit the Rasch model, with only minor issues in five non-core scales which resolved with modification. 1129 Australian-ILST participants were included in the analysis, with minimal psychosocial impact observed shortly after baseline LDCT results. CONCLUSION: COS-LC is the first lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire to be validated in Australia and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Early results did not demonstrate significant psychosocial impacts of screening. Longer-term follow-up is awaited and will be particularly pertinent given the announcement of an Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02871856.

Smoking Cessation Counseling in Practice: A Qualitative Analysis of Quitline Conversations in Queensland, Australia.

Telephone-based services are a practical and effective behavioral support for smoking cessation, yet no in-depth analyses of this counseling have been conducted. Understanding the general content of Quitline conversations can help to improve current practices and may inform future interventions. Therefore, we aimed to independently explore conversation themes, topics, and client questions during Quitline counseling sessions with Quitline clients in Queensland, Australia. A purposive sample of 30 recorded counseling sessions, completed between January and March 2019, were de-identified, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Seven themes, encompassing 35 topics, were derived from 26 initial calls and four follow-up calls: (1) Client details and building rapport; (2) Client history and motivation to quit; (3) Pharmacotherapy; (4) Behavioral aspects of quitting and relationship with smoking; (5) Understanding nicotine dependence and other important considerations; (6) Additional support and smoking cessation resources; and (7) Planning, goal setting and follow-up. Three themes emerged from 18 client questions including (1) Pharmacotherapy safety and contraindications; (2) Pharmacotherapy instructions and mechanism of action; and (3) Physiology of nicotine dependence. This is the first qualitative analysis of the content of Quitline counseling sessions in Australia. Counselors collect and deliver a breadth of information to provide tailored, evidence-based health care, while building rapport and trust. Findings may be translatable into personalized self-help interventions that are more accessible or appealing to people reluctant to contact Quitline. Harnessing educational opportunities regarding pharmacotherapy adherence and misconceptions can improve client confidence in the product and smoking cessation outcomes. Further research will map conversations to motivational interviewing and behavior change techniques.

Conversational artificial intelligence interventions to support smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Conversational artificial intelligence (chatbots and dialogue systems) is an emerging tool for tobacco cessation that has the potential to emulate personalised human support and increase engagement. We aimed to determine the effect of conversational artificial intelligence interventions with or without standard tobacco cessation interventions on tobacco cessation outcomes among adults who smoke, compared to no intervention, placebo intervention or an active comparator. Methods: A comprehensive search of six databases was completed in June 2022. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials published since 2005. The primary outcome was sustained tobacco abstinence, self-reported and/or biochemically validated, for at least 6 months. Secondary outcomes included point-prevalence abstinence and sustained abstinence of less than 6 months. Two authors independently extracted data on cessation outcomes and completed the risk of bias assessment. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Results: From 819 studies, five randomised controlled trials met inclusion criteria (combined sample size n = 58,796). All studies differed in setting, methodology, intervention, participants and end-points. Interventions included chatbots embedded in multi- and single-component smartphone apps (n = 3), a social media-based (n = 1) chatbot, and an internet-based avatar (n = 1). Random effects meta-analysis of three studies found participants in the conversational artificial intelligence enhanced intervention were significantly more likely to quit smoking at 6-month follow-up compared to control group participants (RR = 1.29, 95% CI (1.13, 1.46), p < 0.001). Loss to follow up was generally high. Risk of bias was high overall. Conclusion: We found limited but promising evidence on the effectiveness of conversational artificial intelligence interventions for tobacco cessation. Although all studies found benefits from conversational artificial intelligence interventions, results should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity. Given the rapid evolution and potential of artificial intelligence interventions, further well-designed randomised controlled trials following standardised reporting guidelines are warranted in this emerging area.

Biomarkers of lung cancer for screening and in never-smokers-a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, partially attributed to late-stage diagnoses. In order to mitigate this, lung cancer screening (LCS) of high-risk patients is performed using low dose computed tomography (CT) scans, however this method is burdened by high false-positive rates and radiation exposure for patients. Further, screening programs focus on individuals with heavy smoking histories, and as such, never-smokers who may otherwise be at risk of lung cancer are often overlooked. To resolve these limitations, biomarkers have been posited as potential supplements or replacements to low-dose CT, and as such, a large body of research in this area has been produced. However, comparatively little information exists on their clinical efficacy and how this compares to current LCS strategies. Methods: Here we conduct a search and narrative review of current literature surrounding biomarkers of lung cancer to supplement LCS, and biomarkers of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS). Key Content and Findings: Many potential biomarkers of lung cancer have been identified with varying levels of sensitivity, specificity, clinical efficacy, and supporting evidence. Of the markers identified, multi-target panels of circulating microRNAs, lipids, and metabolites are likely the most clinically efficacious markers to aid current screening programs, as these provide the highest sensitivity and specificity for lung cancer detection. However, circulating lipid and metabolite levels are known to vary in numerous systemic pathologies, highlighting the need for further validation in large cohort randomised studies. Conclusions: Lung cancer biomarkers is a fast-expanding area of research and numerous biomarkers with potential clinical applications have been identified. However, in all cases the level of evidence supporting clinical efficacy is not yet at a level at which it can be translated to clinical practice. The priority now should be to validate existing candidate markers in appropriate clinical contexts and work to integrating these into clinical practice.

Vertebral CT attenuation outperforms standard clinical fracture risk prediction tools in detecting osteoporotic disease in lung cancer screening participants.

OBJECTIVES: Compare accuracy of vertebral Hounsfield Unit (VHU) attenuation and FRAX and Garvan Fracture Risk Calculators in identifying low bone mineral density (BMD) and prevalent vertebral compression fractures (VF) in lung cancer screening (LCS) participants. METHODS: Baseline CT scans from a single site of the International Lung Screen Trial were analysed. BMD was measured using VHU (of the most caudally imaged vertebra) and quantitative CT (QCT) (low BMD defined as <110 HU and <120 mg/cm3, respectively). Prevalent VF were classified semi-quantitatively. 10-year FRAX and Garvan fracture risks were calculated using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) femoral neck T-score where available. Discrimination was assessed by area under receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC). RESULTS: 535 LCS participants were included; 41% had low VHU-BMD, 56% had low QCT-BMD and 10% had ≥1 VF with ≥25% vertebral height loss. VHU demonstrated 94% specificity and 70% sensitivity in identifying low QCT-BMD. VHU was superior to fracture risk tools in discriminating low QCT-BMD (AUC: VHU 0.94 vs FRAX 0.67, Garvan 0.64 [p < 0.05]). In 64 participants with recent DXA scans, VHU was superior to FRAXT-score and GarvanT-score in discriminating low QCT-BMD (AUC: VHU 0.99, FRAXT-score 0.71, GarvanT-score 0.71 [p < 0.05]). VHU was non-inferior to FRAXT-score and GarvanT-score in discriminating VF (AUC: VHU 0.65, FRAXT-score 0.53, GarvanT-score 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: VHU outperforms clinical risk calculators in detecting low BMD and discriminates prevalent VF equally well as risk calculators with T-scores, yet is significantly simpler to perform. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: VHU measurement could aid osteoporosis assessment in high-risk smokers undergoing LCS.

"What do I think about implementing lung cancer screening? It all depends on how." Acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening in Australia: The view of key stakeholders about health system factors.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. Although international trials demonstrate that targeted screening using low dose computed tomography (LDCT) significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, implementation of screening in the high-risk population presents complex health system challenges that need to be thoroughly understood to support policy change. AIM: To elicit health care providers' and policymakers' views about the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening (LCS) and barriers and enablers to implementation in the Australian setting. METHODS: We conducted 24 focus groups and three interviews (22 focus groups and all interviews online) in 2021 with 84 health professionals, researchers, and current cancer screening program managers and policy makers across all Australian states and territories. Focus groups included a structured presentation about lung cancer and screening and lasted approximately one hour each. A qualitative approach to analysis was used to map topics to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Nearly all participants considered LCS to be acceptable and feasible but identified a wide range of implementation challenges. Topics (five specific to health systems and five cross-cutting with participant factors) identified were mapped to CFIR constructs, of which 'readiness for implementation', 'planning' and 'executing' were most salient. Health system factor topics included delivery of the LCS program, cost, workforce considerations, quality assurance and complexity of health systems. Participants strongly advocated for streamlined referral processes. Practical strategies to address equity and access, such as using mobile screening vans, were emphasised. CONCLUSIONS: Key stakeholders readily identified the complex challenges associated with the acceptability and feasibility of LCS in Australia. The barriers and facilitators across health system and cross-cutting topics were clearly elicited. These findings are highly relevant to the scoping of a national LCS program by the Australian Government and a subsequent recommendation for implementation.

Economic impact of using risk models for eligibility selection to the International lung screening Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Using risk models as eligibility criteria for lung screening can reduce race and sex-based disparities. We used data from the International Lung Screening Trial(ILST; NCT02871856) to compare the economic impact of using the PLCOm2012 risk model or the US Preventative Services' categorical age-smoking history-based criteria (USPSTF-2013). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of using PLCOm2012 versus USPSTF-2013 was evaluated with a decision analytic model based on the ILST and other screening trials. The primary outcomes were costs in 2020 International Dollars ($), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental net benefit (INB, in $ per QALY). Secondary outcomes were selection characteristics and cancer detection rates (CDR). RESULTS: Compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria, the PLCOm2012 risk model resulted in $355 of cost savings per 0.2 QALYs gained (INB=$4294 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20 000/QALY (95 %CI: $4205-$4383). Using the risk model was more cost-effective in females at both a 1.5 % and 1.7 % 6-year risk threshold (INB=$6616 and $6112, respectively), compared with males ($5221 and $695). The PLCOm2012 model selected more females, more individuals with fewer years of formal education, and more people with other respiratory illnesses in the ILST. The CDR with the risk model was higher in females compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria (Risk Ratio = 7.67, 95 % CI: 1.87-31.38). CONCLUSION: The PLCOm2012 model saved costs, increased QALYs and mitigated socioeconomic and sex-based disparities in access to screening.

Imperatives of health or happiness: Narrative constructions of long-term smoking after undergoing lung screening.

Tobacco control policies reinforce a health imperative that positions citizens as duty-bound to manage their health by abstaining from or quitting smoking. Limited attention is paid to the repercussions - especially for lung screening - of anti-smoking rhetoric emphasising individual responsibility. Drawing on interviews with 27 long-term smokers involved in an international lung screening trial, this study analysed Australian smokers' narratives of smoking. By attending to stigma and the use of public health rhetoric within personal narratives, we show how narratives underscoring individual responsibility for quitting were layered with conflicting explanations of biological responsibility and normative expectations. Ironically, narratives of individual responsibility potentially undermine smoking cessation. In positioning smokers as responsible for their own healthy choices, such rhetoric also positions smokers as responsible for managing their emotional health, which some did through smoking. Thus, anti-smoking campaigns pit the neoliberal imperative of health against the happiness imperative. These findings have implications for the design and delivery of lung screening campaigns. They also support calls to move beyond health messaging emphasising individual choice, towards acknowledging the moral power of structures and public health campaigns to discipline citizens in unintended ways.

Active screening for lung cancer increases smoking abstinence in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation is an important screening component, but the evidence base to inform implementation is lacking. We report longitudinal smoking behavior in an Australian screening cohort and examine predictor variables associated with continued smoking. METHODS: Healthy current or former smokers (quit less than 15 years and ≥30-pack year smoking history) aged 60-74 years underwent CT screening at baseline, year 1 and year 2. Participants received brief smoking cessation advice and generic Quitline materials. Smoking status was self-reported every 6 months for 5 years. Mediators of smoking behavior, adjusted for sociodemographic, health and scan variables were explored using logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five participants were analyzed. One hundred eight (46%) were current smokers at enrolment. At baseline, current smokers' mean Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence was 4.9, and they had higher levels of lung cancer-specific distress and passive smoke exposure than former smokers. At 36 months, 33% of baseline smokers achieved sustained (≥6 months) smoking abstinence. Five (4%) former smokers relapsed at any point during the study. Continued smoking was positively associated with greater nicotine dependence and smoking pack-years, and negatively associated with cardiovascular disease, stroke, and lung cancer family history. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first data on smoking cessation rates in Australian lung cancer screenees and supports screening as a teachable moment. We identify several factors that identify smokers who may require more intensive smoking cessation interventions and could be used to develop effective smoking cessation as part of lung cancer screening, tailored to individual risk profiles.

Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) trials and real-world programs is low, with many people at high-risk for lung cancer opting out of baseline screening after registering interest. We aimed to identify the potential drivers of participation in LCS in the Australian setting, to inform future implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals at high-risk of lung cancer who were eligible for screening and who had either participated ('screeners') or declined to participate ('decliners') in the International Lung Screening Trial from two Australian sites. Interview guide development was informed by the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the COM-B model of behaviour to explore capability, opportunity and motivation related to screening behaviour. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants were interviewed (25 screeners; 14 decliners). Motivation to participate in screening was high in both groups driven by the lived experience of lung cancer and a belief that screening is valuable, however decliners unlike their screening counterparts reported low self-efficacy. Decliners in our study reported challenges in capability including ability to attend and in knowledge and understanding. Decliners also reported challenges related to physical and social opportunity, in particular location as a barrier and lack of family support to attend screening. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that motivation alone may not be sufficient to change behaviour related to screening participation, unless capability and opportunity are also considered. Focusing strategies on barriers related to capability and opportunity such as online/telephone support, mobile screening programs and financial assistance for screeners may better enhance screening participation. Providing funding for clinicians to support individuals in decision-making and belief in self-efficacy may foster motivation. Targeting interventions that connect eligible individuals with the LCS program will be crucial for successful implementation.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening. SEARCH METHODS: We performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.  None of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE. In the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Invasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  False-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.

Emotions and lung cancer screening: Prioritising a humanistic approach to care.

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening has mortality benefits. Yet, uptake has been low. To inform strategies to better deliver and promote screening, in 2018, we interviewed 27 long-term smokers immediately following lung cancer screening in Australia, prior to receiving scan results. Existing lung screening studies employ the Health Belief Model. Reflecting growing acknowledgement of the centrality of emotions to screening uptake, we draw on psychological and sociological theories on emotions to thematically and abductively analyse the emotional dimensions of lung cancer screening, with implications for screening promotion and delivery. As smokers, interviewees described feeling stigmatised, with female participants internalising and male participants resisting stigma. Guilt and fear related to lung cancer were described as screening motivators. The screening itself elicited mild positive emotions. Notably, interviewees expressed gratitude for the care implicitly shown through lung screening to smokers. More than individual risk assessment, findings suggest lung screening campaigns should prioritise emotions. Peer workers have been found to increase cancer screening uptake in marginalised communities, however the risk to confidentiality-especially for female smokers-limits its feasibility in lung cancer screening. Instead, we suggest involving peer consultants in developing targeted screening strategies that foreground emotions. Furthermore, findings suggest prioritising humanistic care in lung screening delivery. Such an approach may be especially important for smokers from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who perceive lung cancer screening and smoking as sources of stigma and face a higher risk of dying from lung cancer and lower engagement with screening.

Hospital-based multidisciplinary lung cancer care in Australia: a survey of the landscape in 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australia and has the highest cancer burden. Numerous reports describe variations in lung cancer care and outcomes across Australia. There are no data assessing compliance with treatment guidelines and little is known about lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) infrastructure around Australia. METHODS: Clinicians from institutions treating lung cancer were invited to complete an online survey regarding the local infrastructure for lung cancer care and contemporary issues affecting lung cancer. RESULTS: Responses from 79 separate institutions were obtained representing 72% of all known institutions treating lung cancer in Australia. Most (93.6%) held a regular MDT meeting although recommended core membership was only achieved for 42/73 (57.5%) sites. There was no thoracic surgery representation in 17/73 (23.3%) of MDTs and surgery was less represented in regional and low case volume centres. Specialist nurses were present in just 37/79 (46.8%) of all sites. Access to diagnostic and treatment facilities was limited for some institutions. IT infrastructure was variable and most sites (69%) do not perform regular audits against guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven most sites to incorporate virtual MDT meetings, with variable impact around the country. Clinician support for a national data-driven approach to improving lung cancer care was unanimous. DISCUSSION: This survey demonstrates variations in infrastructure support, provision and membership of lung cancer MDTs, in particular thoracic surgery and specialist lung cancer nurses. This heterogeneity may contribute to some of the well-documented variations in lung cancer outcomes in Australia.

What Do People Want in a Smoking Cessation App? An Analysis of User Reviews and App Quality.

INTRODUCTION: Mobile smoking cessation (mCessation) apps have the potential to complement and enhance existing interventions, but many are of low quality. Exploring app reviews can provide a broader understanding of user experiences and engagement, to enhance the quality, acceptability, and effectiveness of future developments. METHODS: Publicly available user reviews and ratings of smoking cessation apps were mined from Google Play and the App Store via a targeted two-stage search strategy. English language smoking cessation apps with at least 20 consumer reviews between 2011 and 2020 were included. User reviews were thematically analyzed using Braun and Clarke's framework. Apps were independently scored using the Mobile Apps Rating Scale (MARS) and compared to average user star ratings. RESULTS: Forty-eight versions of 42 apps, encompassing 1414 associated reviews, met eligibility criteria. Inductive coding of reviews produced 1084 coding references including reviews coded across multiple nodes. Themes generated included: (1) supportive characteristics/tools; (2) useability; (3) influence on smoking behavior; (4) benefits of quitting; and (5) role as a supplementary tool for quitting. The mean MARS score of 36 free and accessible apps was 3.10 (SD 0.71) with mean scores ranging from 2.00 to 4.47. An inverse relationship between MARS scores and average user star ratings was observed. CONCLUSIONS: App personalization, relationality, functionality, and credibility were important to users, and should be considered as key design components for future apps. Differences between user star ratings and MARS scores may illustrate competing priorities of consumers and researchers, and the importance of a codesign development method. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study to use unsolicited user reviews from a large population to understand the general mCessation user experience in relation to making a quit attempt. Our findings highlight specific features favored and disliked by users, including their influence on engagement, and supports previous findings that mCessation applications need to be highly tailorable, functional, credible, and supportive. We recommend a consumer-driven, co-design approach for future mCessation app developments to optimize user acceptability and engagement.