Physician knowledge, practice patterns, and barriers encountered regarding guideline-concordant use of bone modifying agents for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastasis, but not for castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). Physicians beliefs and practices regarding BMA therapy are poorly understood. METHODS: This was a qualitative interview study with embedded Likert-scale elements. Study participants were physicians who treat prostate cancer, located within an academic cancer center or an affiliated community-based network. Participants were asked about their experiences and practice patterns regarding BMA therapy. Participants used Likert-scale items to identify the most common barriers to guideline-concordant BMA use and the most effective potential interventions. Participants were subsequently asked to rank the three most common barriers and the three most effective interventions to reduce underuse (for CRPC) and overuse (for CSPC). RESULTS: Nineteen physicians were invited and 15 participated; one physician did not answer some questions as outside of their practice scope. All were aware of the recommendation for BMAs in CRPC. 14% (2/14) were unaware of the recommendation against BMA use for CSPC; an additional 29% (4/14) believed that BMA use could be appropriate for CSPC depending on the metastatic disease burden. 36% (5/14) were unaware of recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density. The most common barriers (occurring "often" or "sometimes") were obtaining dental clearance (11/15) and insufficient clinic time (6/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce underuse were dental navigation (11/15) and electronic medical record (EMR)-based guidance (9/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce overuse were peer-to-peer education (14/15) and EMR-based guidance (13/15). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of guideline recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density and against BMA use for CSPC was good, but not complete. Dental navigation, peer-to-peer education, and EMR-based guidance were preferred intervention strategies to improve guideline-concordant use.

The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Patient-Reported Receipt of Oncology Clinician-Delivered Brief Tobacco Treatment (5As) Six Months following Cancer Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking after a cancer diagnosis represents a modifiable health risk. It is recommended that oncology clinicians address tobacco use among their patients using the 5As brief model: Asking about use, Advising users to quit, Assessing willingness to quit, Assisting in quit attempts (counseling and medication), and Arranging follow-up. However, cross-sectional studies have found limited adoption of 5As (especially Assist and Arrange) in oncology settings. Further investigation is needed to understand changes in, and factors associated with, 5As delivery over time. METHODS: Patients recently diagnosed with cancer and reporting current smoking (N = 303) enrolled in a smoking cessation clinical trial and completed three longitudinal surveys; at pre-intervention baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up post-enrollment. Patient-level correlates of 5As receipt at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months were identified using multilevel regression models. RESULTS: At baseline, patient-reported rates of 5As receipt from oncology clinicians ranged from 85.17% (Ask) to 32.24% (Arrange). Delivery declined from baseline to 6-month follow-up for all 5As, with the largest declines observed for Ask, Advise, Assess, and Assist-Counseling. Diagnosis of a smoking-related cancer was associated with greater odds of 5As receipt at baseline but lower odds at 6-month follow-up. At each time point, female gender, religiosity, advanced disease, cancer-related stigma, and smoking abstinence were associated with lower odds of 5As receipt, while reporting a recent quit attempt prior to enrollment was associated with higher odds of 5As receipt. CONCLUSION: Oncology clinicians' 5As delivery declined over time. Clinician delivery of the 5As varied based on patients' sociodemographics, clinical and smoking characteristics, and psychosocial factors.

Incorporating Intersectionality as a Framework for Equity-Minded Tobacco Control Research: A Call for Collective Action Toward a Paradigm Shift.

INTRODUCTION: To eliminate tobacco-related disparities, tobacco control research would benefit from a paradigm shift. Intersectionality, a framework pioneered by Kimberlé Crenshaw in late 1980s, has the potential to improve our understanding of why and how certain social groups are disproportionately harmed by commercial tobacco use, and improve our ability to address persistent tobacco-related health disparities. AIMS AND METHODS: In this commentary, we outline the rationale and recommendations for incorporating intersectionality into equity-minded tobacco control research. These recommendations arose from intersectionality webinars organized by the Health Disparities (now Health Equity) Network of the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco (SRNT) in 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: Specifically, we propose that eliminating tobacco-related disparities through intersectionality-informed research requires a multilevel, multipronged approach. We summarize priority actions for the tobacco control research field to achieve health equity through the intersectionality framework including acknowledging that structural factors, racism and power dynamics shape lived experiences, integrating critical theoretical frameworks and intersectionality scholarship into research questions, and embracing collaborative community-based approaches at every level of the research process. CONCLUSIONS: Through these actions, our field can take concrete steps to fundamentally improve our approach to conducting research to achieve health equity. IMPLICATIONS: Intersectionality is a valuable tool to align our field with our pursuit of health equity. The recommendations aim to improve methods of equity-focused tobacco control, prompt ongoing dialogue on the utility of this tool, and shift paradigms in how the research process is conducted at every level among stakeholders, including researchers, journal editors and reviewers, funders, practitioners, and policy makers.

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. METHODS: This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Patterns Among Primary and Pulmonary Care Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening has the potential to identify lung cancer at an early stage when more treatment options exist. However, discussions with and referrals of screening-eligible patients remain unacceptably low. We need to better understand clinician knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns to identify strategies to improve lung cancer screening uptake. Prior studies have focused on understanding these factors from physicians only. Nevertheless, many patients receive primary care from nurse practitioners and physician assistants where prevention and early detection conversations are most likely to occur. Therefore, we must engage the full range of clinicians treating screening-eligible patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe attitudes, beliefs and referral practice patterns, lung cancer screening knowledge, and concordance with lung cancer screening guidelines among nurse practitioners, physicians, and physician assistants in the United States. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was performed using survey methodology with clinical vignettes to examine clinician factors and concordance with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines. RESULTS: Participants scored low on attitudes toward shared decision-making, high on the importance of shared decision-making in lung cancer screening, and low on barriers to lung cancer screening referral. In addition, midrange scores on empathy toward patients with smoking history were noted. Lung cancer screening knowledge was low regardless of clinician specialty; the most endorsed response when presented with a hypothetical patient was to refer for lung cancer screening using a chest X-ray. DISCUSSION: Findings demonstrate that most clinicians are nonconcordant with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, erroneously believing a chest X-ray is appropriate for lung cancer screening. Clinicians must follow evidence-based practice guidelines, highlighting the need for targeted continuing education about lung cancer screening for clinicians who treat screening-eligible patients.

Advancing Proficiencies for Health Professionals in the Treatment of Tobacco Use Among Marginalized Communities: Development of a Competency-Based Curriculum and Virtual Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco-related disparities are a leading contributor to health inequities among marginalized communities. Lack of support from health professionals is one of the most cited barriers to tobacco cessation reported by these communities. Improving the proficiencies with which health professionals incorporate social and cultural influences into therapeutic interactions has the potential to address this critical barrier. In general, training to improve these proficiencies has shown promise, but the specific proficiencies required for treating tobacco use among marginalized communities are unknown. This project aimed to develop a competency-based curriculum to improve these proficiencies among health professionals with experience and training in the evidence-based treatment of tobacco use, and then pilot test the content delivered via an expert review of a virtual, self-paced workshop. METHODS: We used the Delphi Technique to systematically identify the specific competencies and corresponding knowledge and skill sets required to achieve these proficiencies. Educational content was developed to teach these competencies in a virtual workshop. The workshop was evaluated by 11 experts in the field by examining pre- and post-training changes in perceived knowledge, skill, and confidence levels and other quantitative and qualitative feedback. Repeated measures analysis of variance and paired sample t-tests were used to examine pre-post training differences. RESULTS: Six competencies and corresponding skill sets were identified. After exposure to the virtual workshop, the experts reported significant increases in the overall proficiency for each competency as well as increases in nearly all levels of knowledge, skill, and confidence within the competency skill sets. Qualitative and quantitative findings indicate that content was relevant to practice. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide preliminary support for 6 competencies and skills sets needed to improve therapeutic interpersonal interactions that recognize the importance of social and cultural influences in the treatment of tobacco use.

Developing an ACT-based intervention to address lung cancer stigma: Stakeholder recommendations and feasibility testing in two NCI-designated cancer centers.

Objective: Few psychosocial interventions have been tailored to meet the unique needs of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. This pilot study developed and tested a six-week intervention for reducing lung cancer stigma.Design and Subjects: Guided by qualitative interviews conducted with 9 lung cancer patients and 5 thoracic oncology care providers, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy was adapted for treatment of lung cancer stigma (ACT-LCS). In a subsequent single arm pilot study, 22 lung cancer patients reporting high levels of stigma completed the intervention.Setting: NCI-designated cancer centers in the Southwestern and Eastern United States.Results: Of 46 eligible patients, 22 provided consent, with 20 completing the intervention (10 in-person, 10 telehealth). Overall stigma decreased across timepoints, largely driven by reductions in internalized stigma. There were also significant reductions in social isolation, sleep disturbance, and fatigue.Conclusions: The ACT-LCS protocol demonstrates preliminary feasibility and acceptability. This intervention may be particularly suited for helping patients navigate feelings associated with internalized stigma.

Proposing a Model of Proactive Outreach to Advance Clinical Research and Care Delivery for Patients Who Use Tobacco.

There are evidence-based treatments for tobacco dependence, but inequities exist in the access to and reach of these treatments. Traditional models of tobacco treatment delivery are "reactive" and typically provide treatment only to patients who are highly motivated to quit and seek out tobacco treatment. Newer models involve "proactive" outreach, with benefits that include increasing access to tobacco treatment, prompting quit attempts among patients with low motivation, addressing health disparities, and improving population-level quit rates. However, the definition of "proactive" is not clear, and adoption has been slow. This commentary introduces a comprehensive yet flexible model of proactive outreach and describes how proactive outreach can optimize clinical research and care delivery in these domains: (1) identifying the population, (2) offering treatment, and (3) delivering treatment. Dimensions relevant to each domain are the intensity of proactive outreach (low to high) and the extent to which proactive outreach activities rely on human interaction or are facilitated by information technology (IT). Adoption of the proposed proactive outreach model could improve the precision and rigor with which tobacco cessation research and tobacco treatment programs report data, which could have a positive effect on care delivery and patient outcomes.

Internalized stigma among cancer patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial: The role of cancer type and associations with psychological distress.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients who smoke may experience significant stigma due both to their disease, and negative attitudes and beliefs regarding smoking. We investigated whether internalized stigma differed between currently smoking cancer patients diagnosed with lung or head and neck cancers, other smoking related cancers, and non smoking-related cancers, and whether internalized stigma was associated with psychological distress. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used baseline data on 293 participants enrolled in a multi-site randomized smoking cessation intervention trial of patients with recently diagnosed cancer. Internalized stigma was assessed using five Internalized Shame items from the Social Impact of Disease Scale. Smoking-related cancers included lung, head and neck, esophageal, bladder, kidney, liver, pancreatic, colorectal, anal, small intestinal, gastric, and cervical. We used multivariable linear regression to examine whether mean internalized stigma levels differed between individuals with lung and head and neck cancers, other smoking-related cancers, and non smoking-related cancers, adjusting for potential confounders. We further examined the association of internalized stigma with depression, anxiety, and perceived stress, overall and among cancer type groups. RESULTS: Thirty-nine percent of participants were diagnosed with lung or head and neck cancer, 21% with another smoking-related cancer, and 40% with a non smoking-related cancer. In multivariable-adjusted models, participants with lung or head and neck cancers (11.6, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 10.8-12.2; p < 0.0001) or other smoking-related cancers (10.7, 95% CI = 9.8-11.7; p = 0.03) had higher mean internalized stigma scores compared to those non-smoking-related cancers (9.3, 95% CI = 8.6-10.0). We observed similar positive associations between internalized stigma and depressive symptoms, anxiety, and perceived stress among participants with smoking-related and non smoking-related cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Among smokers, those with smoking-related cancers experienced the highest levels of internalized stigma, and greater internalized stigma was associated with greater psychological distress across cancer types. Providers should assess patients for internalized and other forms of stigma, refer patients for appropriate psychosocial support services, and address stigma in smoking cessation programs.

Tobacco-Related Disparities Viewed Through the Lens of Intersectionality.

Despite remarkable progress, tobacco control efforts are not equitably distributed, and tobacco-related disparities continue to contribute to significant health disparities. Our premise in this commentary is that Intersectionality can serve as a productive analytical framework for examining tobacco-related disparities across and within multiple marginalized populations. Intersectionality is a theoretical framework for understanding the multiple interlocking societal systems that bestow privilege and oppression and is increasingly being to the study of health inequities. We present a model and describe how tobacco-related disparities can be understood via critical elements of Intersectionality. We conclude that the application of Intersectionality to understanding tobacco-related disparities has potential to stimulate meaningful discussion and lead to new and innovative multilevel and cross-cutting interventions to eliminate tobacco-related disparities and foster culturally safe environment in which all people can thrive. IMPLICATIONS: This commentary describes how Intersectionality can serve as a productive analytic framework for examining the development and maintenance of tobacco-related disparities across and within many marginalized groups.

A Daily Assessment Study of Smoking Cessation After a Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: This intensive longitudinal study describes key events in the process of smoking cessation after a new head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis. Prior longitudinal studies show some cancer patients quit, while others continue to smoke, but details about the pattern in which these discrete outcomes arise are scarce. This study is meant to help rectify this gap in the literature. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were 42 HNC patients who reported current smoking at enrollment. Participants were recruited from an outpatient oncology clinic and completed a baseline questionnaire prior to begin a 30-day daily assessment. RESULTS: Few participants (9.52%) achieved 30-day continuous abstinence from smoking. On average, participants reported 9.64 ± 11.93 total days of abstinence. Nearly, all (94.44%, n = 34) participants made at least one quit attempt, with an average of 16.94 ± 11.30 quit attempt days. Fewer participants were able to achieve a 24-hour quit attempt (52.78%, n = 19), with a corresponding average of 5.50 ± 8.69 24-hour days. The median time to first 24-hour quit attempt was 13 days after enrollment. Based on smoking behavioral patterns, participants were categorized into five groups, the most common being "persistent attempters," which involved unsuccessful quit attempts throughout the study. Only 45% of participants (n = 19) used evidence-based treatment, the most common being cessation medication. CONCLUSIONS: This intensive longitudinal study found that cancer diagnosis can spur a lot of efforts to quit smoking. Unfortunately, this study suggests that many quit attempts are short lived, possibly a result of an absence or insufficient use of evidence-based treatments. IMPLICATIONS: For adults who are current smokers at the time of cancer diagnosis, there is a high likelihood of persistent cigarette smoking and use of other tobacco products in the weeks and months after a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, this study shows that while a lot of quit attempts may occur, few are successful, which may be partly attributable to the low use of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Future research with cancer patients should aim to identify predictors of quit attempts and abstinence as well as treatment utilization.

Longitudinal Electronic Cigarette Use Among Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many cancer patients who smoke report concurrent e-cigarette use. Using a mixed-methods approach, we aimed to (1) describe longitudinal e-cigarette use over 6 months after a cancer diagnosis and (2) assess the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, among cancer patients in a smoking cessation trial. AIMS AND METHODS: Data were from a 2-site randomized controlled trial of Standard (brief counseling) versus Intensive treatment (sustained counseling plus smoking cessation medication) in individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer. Participants (n = 303) reported e-cigarette use at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Biochemically-verified past 7-day cigarette abstinence was collected at 6 months. Qualitative interviews at 6 months explored factors related to e-cigarette use. RESULTS: E-cigarette use prevalence was highest between baseline and 3 months (16%) and declined over time. Participants using e-cigarettes at follow-up had higher baseline cigarette dependence and smoked more heavily. Multivariable analyses found no significant association between follow-up e-cigarette use and 6-month cigarette abstinence. E-cigarette use at follow-up was higher in the Standard versus Intensive treatment group (p = .003 and .001 at 3 and 6 mo, respectively). Smoking cessation and health concerns were primary reasons for using e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in a smoking cessation intervention trial, e-cigarette use during trial participation was not associated with smoking abstinence. Individuals who chose to use e-cigarettes were less likely to be receiving intensive cessation support as part of the trial. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation in cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS: E-cigarette use was not associated with cigarette abstinence at 6 months among adults who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Individuals with easier access to evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may be less likely to use e-cigarettes.

Reporting Treatment Fidelity in Behavioral Tobacco Treatment Clinical Trials: Scoping Review and Measurement Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Adoption of rigorous standards for reporting treatment fidelity is essential for advancing discovery, validation, and implementation of behavioral treatments. Whereas the NIH Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) developed an assessment tool to assess the quality of reporting and monitoring of treatment fidelity across health behavior change interventions, it has not yet been applied specifically to treatment fidelity in behavioral tobacco treatment trials. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed, clinical trials of behavioral adult tobacco treatment interventions published in English between 2006 and 2018. Using the BCC treatment fidelity checklist, articles were coded for the presence or absence of various treatment fidelity strategies within each of 5 domains: Design, Training, Delivery, Receipt, and Enactment. Eligible articles (N = 755) were coded by two independent coders. RESULTS: The proportion of reporting strategies varied within the fidelity domains, ranging from 5.2% to 96.3% in Design, 1.9% to 24.9% in Training, 2.6% to 32.3% in Delivery, 5.2% to 44.3% in Receipt, and 6.7% to 43.2% in Enactment. The mean proportion of adherence to treatment fidelity strategies within each domain was: Design (68%), Training (14%), Delivery (15%), Receipt (16%), and Enactment (25%). Only 11 studies achieved ≥80% reporting across >1 fidelity domain. There was no evidence for improvement in fidelity reporting across the 13-year time frame from the initial BCC publication to the present. CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate the lack of consistency in fidelity reporting in tobacco treatment trials and underscore the challenges faced in evaluating rigor and reproducibility, as well as interpretation and dissemination of findings. Recommendations are made for improving fidelity reporting in tobacco treatment trials. IMPLICATIONS: The SRNT Treatment Research Network sponsored a scoping review to summarize the current state of reporting treatment fidelity and make recommendations for best practices in reporting fidelity in tobacco treatment trials. The review identified a lack of consistency in fidelity reporting, illustrating the challenges faced in evaluating rigor, and reproducibility, as well as interpretation and dissemination of findings.

Investigating documentation of alcohol and non-medical substance use in oncology treatment: an electronic health record review.

PURPOSE: Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU. METHODS: We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented). RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use). CONCLUSIONS: About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible. METHODS: Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Spanish version of the lung cancer screening health belief scale.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the translation and psychometric testing of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale (LCSHBS) into Spanish. METHODS: The English version of the LCSHBS was professionally translated in accordance with best practices in the translation of patient-reported outcome tools. The independent certified professional translator completed a forward translation of the LCSHBS from English to Spanish, followed by a review of the translated questionnaire by a certified Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Spanish-English bicultural expert, who reviewed the scale for accuracy. RESULTS: Initial testing of the scales is valid and reliable, and supports the Spanish version of the LCSHBS (LCSHBS-S). Internal consistency reliability of the scales was supported with Cronbach's ranging from 0.81 to 0.96. Construct validity was established with confirmatory factor analysis and testing for differences between individuals who have and have not screened in theoretically proposed directions. These newly translated scales can help investigators expand this research into the large Spanish-speaking lung screening-eligible population as they develop and test critical behavioural interventions to increase lung cancer screening in the at-risk population. CONCLUSIONS: Development of effective interventions to enhance shared decision-making about lung cancer screening between patients and providers must first identify factors influencing the individual's screening participation. Future efforts facilitating patient-provider conversations are better informed by understanding the perspective of the individual making the decision.

Study protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial testing virtual tobacco treatment in oncology practices [Smokefree Support Study 2.0].

BACKGROUND: Persistent smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, yet an evidence-based tobacco use intervention has not been well-integrated into cancer care in community oncology settings. This paper describes the protocol of a nation-wide clinical trial conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base to assess the effectiveness of a virtual tobacco treatment intervention and the process of implementing tobacco treatment in NCORP community oncology settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm, multisite (n: 49 NCORP sites) hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of a Virtual Intervention Treatment (VIT) versus an Enhanced Usual Control (EUC) among English and Spanish speaking patients recently diagnosed with cancer, reporting current smoking and receiving care at a participating NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Site. The VIT includes up to 11 virtual counseling sessions with a tobacco treatment specialist and up to 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The EUC arm receives a referral to the NCI Quitline. The primary study outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Moderators of treatment effect will be assessed. The study evaluates implementation processes from participating NCORP site staff via survey, administrative, and focus group data, including reach, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, feasibility, adoption, cost and sustainability outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will generate findings about the effectiveness of an evidence-based virtual tobacco treatment intervention targeting patients diagnosed with cancer and illuminate barriers and facilitators that influence implementing tobacco treatment into community oncology settings nationally. In the era of COVID-19, virtual care solutions are vital for maximizing access and utilization of tobacco treatment delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808818) on January 18th, 2019; Last update posted: May 21st, 2020.

Understanding cognitive and emotional illness representations of South Asian head and neck cancer survivors: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Head and neck cancer (HNC) constitutes a substantial portion of the cancer burden worldwide, with over 550,000 new cases and over 300,000 deaths annually, with disproportionately high mortality rates in the developing countries. The large majority of HNCs are caused by tobacco use, and synergistic effects of tobacco and alcohol use. Using the Common-Sense Model (CSM) as a framework, this qualitative study sought to understand South Asian HNC survivors' cognitive and emotional representations of their cancer; and to assess if these representations differ by smokeless tobacco (SLT) vs. smoked tobacco use. DESIGN: In-depth semi-structured interviews, conducted with South Asian HNC survivors (N = 15, 80% participants were immigrants, while 20% came to the United States for treatment) to identify key themes and issues related to HNC experience and SLT vs. smoked tobacco use. RESULTS: The results of the study provide a deeper understanding of South Asian HNC survivor experiences with receiving a HNC diagnosis, delays in seeking treatment and related medical care, disagreement regarding smoked tobacco/SLT history as potential causes of cancer, strategies to cure the cancer or prevent recurrence, enduring physical and psycho-social consequences of treatment, and emotional impact of the cancer experience. Three key implications emerged: (a) the utility of narratives as a method of eliciting HNC survivor experience to understand patient experiences and concerns; (b) the potential for public health practitioners to harness patients' voices and the power of storytelling for developing campaigns about public awareness of SLT use, providing information and support to SLT users, and encouraging SLT quitting resources; and (c) the importance of providing clear, personalized and culturally sensitive education regarding the risks of SLT use. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the significance of offering tailored tobacco cessation services to South Asian HNC survivors, and to help inform supportive models of care for others.

Training oncology care providers in the assessment and treatment of tobacco use and dependence.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for promoting smoking cessation in cancer care exist; however, most oncology settings have not established tobacco use assessment and treatment as standard care. Inadequate staff training and other implementation challenges have been identified as barriers for delivery of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Providing training in tobacco treatment tailored to the unique needs of tobacco-dependent patients with cancer is one strategy to improve adoption of best practices to promote smoking cessation in cancer care. METHODS: A tobacco treatment training program for oncology care providers (tobacco treatment training-oncology [TTT-O]) consisting of a 2-day didactic and experiential workshop followed by 6 monthly, collaboratory videoconference calls supporting participants in their efforts to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in their oncology settings was developed and implemented. This article presents preliminary results on program evaluation, changes in participants' self-efficacy, and progress in implementing tobacco treatment. RESULTS: Data have been obtained from the first 5 cohorts of TTT-O participants (n = 110) who completed training, course evaluations, baseline and follow-up surveys. Participants rated the training as highly favorable and reported significant gains in self-efficacy in their ability to assess and treat tobacco dependence. Participants also demonstrated significant improvements in tobacco treatment skills and implementation of several indicators of improved adoption of best practices for tobacco treatment in their cancer care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of tobacco treatment training for cancer care providers is feasible, acceptable, and can have a significant positive impact on participants' tobacco treatment skills, self-efficacy, and greater adoption of tobacco treatment delivery in cancer care.