Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the lung cancer screening health belief scales.

BACKGROUND: Health belief is an important factor affecting lung cancer screening in high-risk population, but the research based on Chinese cultural background is still insufficient. Therefore, we adapted the English version of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales (LCSHB) into the Chinese version (LCSHB-C) and examined its psychometric characteristics. METHODS: After obtaining authorization from the original author, the LCSHB-C was adapted based upon Brislin's translation model. Using a variety of community-based recruitment methods, a total of 353 participants were recruited in Fuzhou, Fujian province, China to complete the questionnaires. We combined the classical test theory and item response theory to examine the psychometric properties of the LCSHB-C. RESULTS: The Cronbach's alpha for the four subscales ranged from 0.83 ~ 0.93. The content validity index for the four subscales was ranged from 0.87 ~ 1.0. Confirmatory factor analysis supported each subscale structure model fit well. Rasch analysis results further validated the reliability and validity of the four subscales. The person reliability and separation index of each subscale ranged from 0.77 to 0.87 and 1.83 to 2.63, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LCSHB-C is a reliable and valid instrument used to measure health beliefs related to lung cancer screening among those high-risk for lung cancer in China, which facilitates the development of lung cancer screening programs and promotes the "three early prevention strategies" of lung cancer (i.e.,early detection, early diagnosis and early treatment).

Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility on NCI-Designated Cancer Center Websites.

Online lung cancer screening assessments empower patients to learn about their risk for lung cancer and eligibility for screening. However, it is unknown whether these online assessments provide tailored recommendations that are consistent with national guidelines and include information to prepare patients for shared decision-making (SDM) consultations with their healthcare provider. In November 2019, we reviewed 71 NCI-Designated Cancer Center websites to identify US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening eligibility and evidence-based features of shared decision-making (SDM). Only 11% of the websites included an online lung cancer screening assessment. Most assessments included tailored recommendations for screening eligibility based on USPSTF guidelines. Assessments designed to support SDM included both potential benefits and harms of undergoing lung cancer screening. Nearly all assessments directed adults to discuss the results with their healthcare provider and reinforced the importance of living a tobacco-free lifestyle. Online lung cancer screening assessments have the potential to put patients in control of knowledge about their lung cancer risk and screening eligibility. While nearly all assessments recommend patients to speak with their healthcare provider about their risk for lung cancer, patients may require more support to initiate and navigate SDM conversations with their providers.

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.

Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Association Between Social Media Use and Vaping Among Florida Adolescents, 2019.

INTRODUCTION: With the growing popularity of vaping, evidence has emerged about the association between social media use and vaping among adolescents, possibly because of the proliferation of e-cigarette advertisements and other related content on social media. Our study examined the association between social media use and vaping among adolescents. METHODS: Using data from the 2019 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (N = 10,776), we conducted logistic regression models on adolescent vaping status (experimental and current vaping) by nondaily and daily use of social media platforms - Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat, controlling for other confounders. RESULTS: Use of all 4 selected social media platforms was significantly associated with vaping status (P <.001 for all). Once jointly analyzed, daily use of Instagram was significantly associated with increased relative risks of experimental (adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.38-2.25) and current vaping (aRRR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.16-1.95); nondaily use of Snapchat was significantly associated with increased relative risk of experimental (aRRR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.17-2.10) and current vaping (aRRR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.31-2.66); daily use of Snapchat was associated with increased relative risk of experimental (aRRR = 2.38; 95% CI, 1.85-3.08) and current vaping (aRRR = 5.09; 95% CI, 3.78-6.86); nondaily use of Facebook was associated with increased relative risk of current vaping (aRRR = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and nondaily use of Twitter was associated with increased relative risk of current vaping (aRRR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.56). CONCLUSION: Multilevel efforts are warranted to monitor social media use and vaping status among adolescents, including media use monitoring plans, developing counter-marketing campaigns, and strict regulatory action on social media.

Rapid Scaling Up of Telehealth Treatment for Tobacco-Dependent Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Outbreak in New York City.

Background: The (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in sudden disruption of routine clinical care necessitating rapid transformation to maintain clinical care while safely reducing virus contagion. Introduction: Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) experienced a rapid evolution from delivery of in-person cessation counseling services to virtual telehealth treatments for our tobacco-dependent cancer patients. Aim: To examine the effect of rapid scaling of tobacco treatment telehealth on patient engagement, as measured by attendance rates for in-person counseling visits versus remote telehealth counseling visits. We also describe the patient, clinician, and health care system challenges encountered in rapid expansion of individual and group tobacco telehealth services. Methods: Data collected from the electronic medical record during the first 4 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were examined for tobacco treatment counseling. Results: From January 1, 2020 to March 30, 2020, markedly improved patient engagement was observed in ambulatory tobacco treatment services with greater attendance at scheduled telehealth visits than in-person visits, 75% versus 60.3%, odds ratio 1.84 (confidence interval: 1.26-2.71; p < 0.001). In addition, bedside hospital counseling visits were transformed into inpatient telephone visits with high levels of sustained patient engagement. Lastly, group telehealth services were launched rapidly to increase capacity and provide greater psychosocial support for cancer patients struggling with tobacco dependence. Discussion: Clinical, Information Technology (IT), and hospital system barriers were successfully addressed for most cancer patients seeking individual telehealth treatment. Group telehealth services were found to be feasible and acceptable. Conclusions: MSK's rapid leap into virtual care delivery mitigated disruption of tobacco treatment services and demonstrated strong feasibility and acceptance for managing complex tobacco-dependent patients.

Tobacco-Related Counseling and Documentation in Adolescent Primary Care Practice: Challenges and Opportunities.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care visits present an opportunity to reduce tobacco use and tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) among adolescents. To date, few studies have examined tobacco-related electronic health record (EHR) documentation in adolescent visits. The purpose of this study was to (1) describe tobacco-related EHR documentation practices in adolescent care clinics, including whether alternative tobacco products, parental use, and TSE were addressed; and (2) identify aspects of adolescent tobacco use that may inform EHR updates and counseling and documentation practices. METHODS: Following a convergent mixed-methods design, we conducted an EHR review of 508 adolescent well-child visits, performed focus groups with pediatric providers and staff, and conducted in-depth interviews with adolescent patients. Record review data and interview transcripts were analyzed and interpreted concurrently. RESULTS: In the EHR review, cigarette screening was documented in 92.3% of visits, smokeless tobacco screening in 51.4%, parental tobacco use in 23.2%, and home TSE in 33.1% of visits. Smoking status options were not mutually exclusive and did not include noncigarette products. No records documented assessment of e-cigarette use, despite nearly half of adolescent interview respondents citing these as the most popular products among adolescents. In interviews, adolescents discussed their experiences with alternative tobacco/nicotine products more than cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco use status prompts should be revised for clarity and include noncigarette tobacco products and TSE. Provider education on noncigarette products and TSE assessment is needed. Improvements in EHR systems, resources, and tools can lead to better tobacco screening, prevention, and treatment practices among primary care providers. IMPLICATIONS: Clinical guidelines call for pediatricians to assess and treat adolescent and parental tobacco use during primary care visits. The use of electronic health records (EHRs) can improve screening and counseling practices; however, few studies have examined tobacco-related EHR documentation practices in adolescent care settings. This mixed-methods study found low rates of EHR documentation related to noncigarette nicotine/tobacco products, parental tobacco use, and tobacco smoke exposure. These results demonstrate the need for increased provider training and EHR modifications to facilitate comprehensive tobacco control efforts in the adolescent population.

Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Community-Based Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions. METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk-a web-based tailored computer program-while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician. RESULTS: Knowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions. CONCLUSIONS: LungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694.

Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although new screening programmes with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer have been implemented throughout the United States, screening uptake remains low and screening-eligible persons' decisions to screen or not remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To describe how current and former long-term smokers explain their decisions regarding participation in lung cancer screening. DESIGN: Phone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide were conducted to ask screening-eligible persons to describe their decisions regarding screening with LDCT. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with conventional content analytic techniques. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A subsample of 40 participants (20 who had screened and 20 who had not) were drawn from the sample of a survey study whose participants were recruited by Facebook targeted advertisements. RESULTS: The sample was divided into the following five groups based on their decisions regarding lung cancer screening participation: Group 1: no intention to be screened, Group 2: no deliberate consideration but somewhat open to being screened, Group 3: deliberate consideration but no definitive decision to be screened, Group 4: intention to be screened and Group 5: had been screened. Reasons for screening participation decisions are described for each group. Across groups, data revealed that screening-eligible persons have a number of misconceptions regarding LDCT, including that a scan is needed only if one is symptomatic or has not had a chest x-ray. A physician recommendation was a key influence on decisions to screen. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Education initiatives aimed at providers and long-term smokers regarding LDCT is needed. Quality patient/provider communication is most likely to improve screening rates.

Disparities in the Receipt of Tobacco Treatment Counseling within the US Context of the Affordable Care Act and Meaningful Use Implementation.

Introduction: Disparities in receiving advice to quit smoking and other tobacco use from health professionals may contribute to the continuing gap in smoking prevalence among priority populations. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), beginning in 2010, tobacco cessation services are currently covered in private and public health insurance plans. Providers and hospitals are also incentivized through the Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to screen and document patients' tobacco use and deliver brief cessation counseling. This study analyzes trends and correlates of receiving health professionals' advice to quit and potential disparities among US adult smokers from 2010 to 2015. Methods: Data were from the National Health Interview Survey in 2010 and 2015. We analyzed the weighted prevalence of smokers' receipt of advice to quit smoking and other tobacco use from a health professional in 2010 and 2015 and correlates of receiving advice to quit. Results: Prevalence of receiving advice to quit from a health professional increased from 51.4% in 2010 to 60.6% in 2015. This positive trend was observed across tobacco disparity population groups. Survey year (2015), age (older), ethnicity (non-Hispanic), region (Northeast), poverty level (above 100% poverty level), past quit attempt, daily smoking, cigarettes per day (11+ per day), and psychological distress were associated with higher odds of receiving advice to quit. Conclusion: Based on national level data, receipt of advice to quit from health professionals increased between 2010 and 2015. However, disparities in receiving advice to quit from health professionals persist in certain populations. Implications: This study provides important data on the national trends in receipt of health professional advice to quit smoking and other tobacco use in the context of the ACA and Meaningful Use implementation and whether these policies helped to narrow the gaps in receipt of health professional advice among vulnerable populations.

Current Smokers' Preferences for Receiving Cessation Information in a Lung Cancer Screening Setting.

The purpose of this study was to identify current smokers' communication format preferences for receiving smoking cessation information in a lung cancer screening setting. A cross-sectional correlational design using survey methodology with 159 screening-eligible current smokers was the method used. Data was dichotomized (digital versus traditional preference) and analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression. Race was a statistically significant predictor with White participants having four times greater odds of reporting preference for a digital format for receiving smoking cessation information such as social media and/or supportive text messages (OR: 4.06; p = 0.004). Lung cancer screening is a new venue where current long-term smokers can be offered information about smoking cessation while they are engaging in a health-promoting behavior and potentially more likely to contemplate quitting. It is important to consider the communication format preference of current smokers to support cessation uptake. This study is the first to examine communication format preference of current smokers in the context of the lung cancer screening venue. Key differences noted by race support the need for further research examining multiple formats of communication with efforts to maximize options in the cancer screening setting.

Do you vape? Leveraging electronic health records to assess clinician documentation of electronic nicotine delivery system use among adolescents and adults.

Use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has increased substantially over the past decade. However, unlike smoking, which is systematically captured by clinicians through routine screening and discrete documentation fields in the electronic health record (EHR), unknown is the extent to which clinicians are documenting patients' use of ENDS. Data were gathered from medical visits with patients aged 12 and older (N=9,119; 55% male) treated in a large, integrated healthcare system. We used natural language processing to assess the incidence rates of clinician documentation of patients' ENDS use in unstructured tobacco comments in the EHR, and the words most frequently documented in relation to ENDS, from 2006-2015. ENDS documentation in the EHR increased dramatically over time (from 0.01 to 9.5 per 10,000 patients, p<0.0001), particularly among adults aged 18-24 and 25-44. Most prevalent were "e-cig," "electronic cigarettes", and "vape," with much variation in spelling and phrasing of these words. Records of adolescent and young adult patients were more likely to contain the word "vape", and less likely to have "e-cig" and "electronic cigarette" than records of adults (ps<0.0001). The relatively low observed number of patients with ENDS terms in the EHR suggested vast under documentation. While healthcare providers are increasingly documenting patients' use of ENDS in the EHR, overall documentation rates remain low. Discrete EHR fields for standard screening and documentation of ENDS that reflect the language used by patients would provide more complete longitudinal population-level surveillance of ENDS use and its association with short- and long-term health outcomes.

A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening.

Background: Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography is relatively new for long-term smokers in the USA supported by a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation. As screening programs are more widely implemented nationally and providers engage patients about lung cancer screening, it is critical to understand behaviour among high-risk smokers who opt out to improve shared decision-making processes for lung cancer screening. Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons for screening-eligible patients' decisions to opt out of screening after receiving a provider recommendation. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed with 18 participants who met lung cancer screening criteria for age, smoking and pack-year history in Washington State from November 2015 to January 2016. Two researchers with cancer screening and qualitative methodology expertise conducted data analysis using thematic content analytic procedures from audio-recorded interviews. Results: Five primary themes emerged for reasons of opting out of lung cancer screening: (i) Knowledge Avoidance; (ii) Perceived Low Value; (iii) False-Positive Worry; (iv) Practical Barriers; and (v) Patient Misunderstanding. Conclusion: The participants in our study provided insight into why some patients make the decision to opt out of low-dose computed tomography screening, which provides knowledge that can inform intervention development to enhance shared decision-making processes between long-term smokers and their providers and decrease decisional conflict about screening.

Lung cancer screening: what do long-term smokers know and believe?

OBJECTIVE: To explore knowledge and beliefs of long-term smokers about lung cancer, associated risk factors and lung cancer screening. DESIGN: Qualitative study theoretically framed by the expanded Health Belief Model based on four focus group discussions. Content analysis was performed to identify themes of knowledge and beliefs about lung cancer, associated risk factors and lung cancer screening among long-term smokers' who had and had not been screened for lung cancer. METHODS: Twenty-six long-term smokers were recruited; two groups (n = 9; n = 3) had recently been screened and two groups (n = 7; n = 7) had never been screened. RESULTS: While most agreed lung cancer is deadly, confusion or inaccurate information exists regarding the causes and associated risk factors. Knowledge related to lung cancer screening and how it is performed was low; awareness of long-term smoking's association with lung cancer risk remains suboptimal. Perceived benefits of screening identified include: (i) finding lung cancer early; (ii) giving peace of mind; and (iii) motivation to quit smoking. Perceived barriers to screening identified include: (i) inconvenience; (ii) distrust; and (iii) stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived barriers to lung cancer screening, such as distrust and stigma, must be addressed as lung cancer screening becomes more widely implemented. Heightened levels of health-care system distrust may impact successful implementation of screening programmes. Perceived smoking-related stigma may lead to low levels of patient engagement with medical care and decreased cancer screening participation. It is also important to determine modifiable targets for intervention to enhance the shared decision-making process between health-care providers and their high-risk patients.

Beyond Traditional Newspaper Advertisement: Leveraging Facebook-Targeted Advertisement to Recruit Long-Term Smokers for Research.

BACKGROUND: Smokers are a stigmatized population, but an important population to reach for the purpose of research. Therefore, innovative recruitment methods are needed that are both cost-effective and efficacious in recruiting this population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present article was to evaluate the feasibility of Facebook-targeted advertisement to recruit long-term smokers eligible for lung cancer screening for a descriptive, cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A social media recruitment campaign was launched using Facebook-targeted advertisement to target age and keywords related to tobacco smoking in the Facebook users profile, interests, and likes. A 3-day newspaper advertisement recruitment campaign was used as a comparison. The study that used both recruitment methods aimed to test the psychometric properties of 4 newly developed lung cancer screening health belief scales. Data were collected via cross-sectional survey methodology using an Web-based survey platform. RESULTS: The Facebook-targeted advertisements were viewed 56,621 times over an 18-day campaign in 2015 in the United States. The advertisement campaign yielded 1121 unique clicks to the Web-based survey platform at a cost of $1.51 per completed survey. Of those who clicked through to the study survey platform, 423 (37.7%) consented to participate; 92 (8.2%) dropped out during completion of the survey yielding a final study pool of 331 completed surveys. Recruitment by newspaper advertisement yielded a total of 30 participants in response to a 3-day advertisement campaign; recruitment efficacy resulted in 10 participants/day at $40.80 per completed survey. Participants represented current (n=182; 51%) and former smokers (n=178; 49%) with a mean age of 63.4 years (SD 6.0). Cost of the advertisement campaign was $500 total for the 18-day campaign. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment by Facebook was more efficacious and cost-effective compared with newspaper advertisement. Facebook offers a new venue for recruitment into research studies that offer the potential for wider reach at a lower cost while providing privacy and flexibility for potential study participants. The study's findings extend recent work of other researchers who have demonstrated Facebook's utility with younger smokers, and Facebook is an effective tool to recruit older smokers. Furthermore, Facebook is a cost-effective alternative to traditional newspaper advertisement offering a new, affordable venue to recruit large numbers of older smokers efficiently.

Facebook targeted advertisement for research recruitment: A primer for nurse researchers.

Recruiting participants for research studies can be challenging and costly. Innovative recruitment methods are needed. Facebook targeted advertisement offers a low-cost alternative to traditional methods that has been successfully used in research study recruitment. This primer offers nurse researchers a method utilizing social media as a recruitment tool and details Facebook targeted advertisement for research recruitment.

An introduction to key event mapping: A primer for nurse researchers.

To fully understand the events leading to a diagnosis, retrospective recall can help nurse researchers reconstruct important health behavior-related events. However, retrospective recall can be a challenge. Key event mapping offers nurse researchers a method beyond retrospective chart review to elicit date data to explore the pre-diagnosis time frame of an illness. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the key event mapping method to nurse researchers in search of a method of eliciting date data from participants when designing research studies that include a retrospective recall component.