Pilot randomised controlled trial of a culturally aligned smoking cessation app for American Indian persons.

OBJECTIVE: To pilot test QuitGuide for Natives, a culturally aligned version of the National Cancer Institute's QuitGuide smartphone app for smoking cessation. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was conducted remotely during 2022-2023. American Indian adults who smoked and resided in the Midwest (n=115) were randomised to QuitGuide for Natives or the general audience QuitGuide smartphone-based intervention. Group differences in feasibility (times the app was initiated), usability, acceptability ('How likely would you be to recommend the app to a friend?'), fit of app with culture and preliminary efficacy (24-hour quit attempts, cotinine-confirmed self-reported 7-day abstinence) outcomes were examined. RESULTS: QuitGuide for Natives versus the general audience QuitGuide did not differ in the number of times the app was opened (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.94 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.40); p=0.743) nor in usability score (adjusted mean difference (aMD) 0.73 (95% CI: -5.00 to 6.46); p=0.801) or likeliness of recommending the app to a friend (aMD 0.62 (95% CI -0.02 to 1.27); p=0.058). Differences were observed for all cultural fit outcomes such as 'The app fits my American Indian culture (aMD 0.75 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.16); p<0.001). QuitGuide for Natives versus the general audience QuitGuide resulted in an average of 6.6 vs 5.1 24-hour quit attempts (p=0.349) and cotinine-confirmed 7-day abstinence was achieved by 6.9% vs 3.5% (p=0.679). CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability, cultural fit and preliminary efficacy findings are encouraging and will inform future, larger-scale evaluation of culturally aligned digital smoking cessation resources for American Indian adults.

Developing LHS scholars' competency around reducing burnout and moral injury.

Despite the known benefits of supportive work environments for promoting patient quality and safety and healthcare worker retention, there is no clear mandate for improving work environments within Learning Health Systems (LHS) nor an LHS wellness competency. Striking rises in burnout levels among healthcare workers provide urgency for this topic. Methods: We brought three experts on moral injury, burnout prevention, and ethics to a recurring, interactive LHS training program "Design Shop" session, harnessing scholars' ideas prior to the meeting. Generally following SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, we evaluated the prework and discussion via informal content analysis to develop a set of pathways for developing moral injury and burnout prevention programs. Along these lines, we developed a new competency for moral injury and burnout prevention within LHS training programs. Results: In preparation for the session, scholars differentiated moral injury from burnout, highlighted the profound impact of COVID-19 on moral injury, and proposed testable interventions to reduce injury. Scholar and expert input was then merged into developing the new competency in moral injury and burnout prevention. In particular, the competency focuses on preparing scholars to (1) demonstrate knowledge of moral injury and burnout, (2) measure burnout, moral injury, and their remediable predictors, (3) use methods for improving burnout, (4) structure training programs with supportive work environments, and (5) embed burnout and moral injury prevention into LHS structures. Conclusions: Burnout and moral injury prevention have been largely omitted in LHS training. A competency related to burnout and moral injury reduction can potentially bring sustainable work lives for scholars and their colleagues, better incorporation of their science into clinical practice, and better outcomes for patients.

Lung Cancer Screening Outreach Program in an Urban Native American Clinic.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate uptake of lung cancer screening in an urban Native American clinic using 2 culturally targeted promotion strategies. METHODS: Patients eligible for lung cancer screening from July 2019 to July 2021 were randomized to receive either a single culturally-targeted mailer from the clinic regarding possible eligibility for screening, or the same mailer plus a follow-up text message and additional mailing. RESULTS: Overall, there were low rates of shared decision-making visit scheduling (8.5%) with no difference between promotion strategy groups (9.4% in control group vs 7.7% in culturally-targeted outreach group). Only about 50% of the lung cancer screening CT exams ordered were completed and returned to the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: While there was no difference between arms in this intervention, 8.5% of the sample did complete a shared decision-making visit after these low-cost interventions. The gap between the number of screening CTs ordered and number who completed the CT represents an area where further interventions should focus.

Optimizing Longitudinal Tobacco Cessation Treatment in Lung Cancer Screening: A Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trial.

Importance: Nearly half of the 14.8 million US adults eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) smoke cigarettes. The optimal smoking cessation program components for the LCS setting are unclear. Objective: To assess the effect of adding a referral to prescription medication therapy management (MTM) to the tobacco longitudinal care (TLC) program among patients eligible for LCS who smoke and do not respond to early tobacco treatment and to assess the effect of decreasing the intensity of TLC among participants who do respond to early treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included patients who currently smoked cigarettes daily and were eligible for LCS. Recruitment took place at primary care centers and LCS programs at 3 large health systems in the US and began in October 2016, and 18-month follow-up was completed April 2021. Interventions: (1) TLC comprising intensive telephone coaching and combination nicotine replacement therapy for 1 year with at least monthly contact; (2) TLC with MTM, MTM offered pharmacist-referral for prescription medications; and (3) Quarterly TLC, intensity of TLC was decreased to quarterly contact. Intervention assignments were based on early response to tobacco treatment (abstinence) that was assessed either 4 weeks or 8 weeks after treatment initiation. Main outcomes and Measures: Self-reported, 6-month prolonged abstinence at 18-month. Results: Of 636 participants, 228 (35.9%) were female, 564 (89.4%) were White individuals, and the median (IQR) age was 64.3 (59.6-68.8) years. Four weeks or 8 weeks after treatment initiation, 510 participants (80.2%) continued to smoke (ie, early treatment nonresponders) and 126 participants (19.8%) had quit (ie, early treatment responders). The 18 month follow-up survey response rate was 83.2% (529 of 636). Across TLC groups at 18 months follow-up, the overall 6-month prolonged abstinence rate was 24.4% (129 of 529). Among the 416 early treatment nonresponders, 6-month prolonged abstinence for TLC with MTM vs TLC was 17.8% vs 16.4% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.13; 95% CI, 0.67-1.89). In TLC with MTM, 98 of 254 participants (39%) completed at least 1 MTM visit. Among 113 early treatment responders, 6-month prolonged abstinence for Quarterly TLC vs TLC was 24 of 55 (43.6%) vs 34 of 58 (58.6%) (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.25-1.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, adding referral to MTM with TLC for participants who did not respond to early treatment did not improve smoking abstinence. Stepping down to Quarterly TLC among early treatment responders is not recommended. Integrating longitudinal tobacco cessation care with LCS is feasible and associated with clinically meaningful quit rates. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02597491.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Determinants of Lung Cancer Screening in a Minnesota Urban Indigenous Community: A Community-Based, Participatory, Action-Oriented Study.

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose chest CT has been shown to reduce lung cancer deaths, it remains underutilized. Northern Plains American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities experience extreme lung cancer disparities, and little is known about the acceptance and adoption of LCS in these groups. We conducted interviews with healthcare professionals and focus groups with patients in an urban Minnesota community clinic serving AI/AN. Data collection took place during winter 2019-2020. Indigenous researchers collected and analyzed the data for emergent themes using simultaneous collaborative consensus with a LCS researcher. Participants reported some similar barriers to LCS as previous studies reported but also shared some new insights into traditional ways of knowing and recommendations for effectively implementing this evidence-based preventive care service. Lung screening is largely acceptable to patients and healthcare personnel in an AI/AN-serving community clinic. We identified barriers as previously reported in other populations but also identified some unique barriers and motivators. For example, the concept of the seven generations may provide motivation to maintain one's health for future generations while providing additional support during screening for persons traumatized by the Western medicine health system may facilitate increased screening uptake. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Secondary prevention of lung cancer through screening is potentially lifesaving considering that overall survival of lung cancer is 20% at 5 years but curable if detected at an early stage. This work provides insight into culturally tailored approaches to implementing the service in individuals at high risk of the disease.

Latent constructs identified in older individuals who smoke cigarettes and are eligible for lung cancer screening: Factor analysis of baseline data from the PLUTO smoking cessation trial.

Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) combined with smoking cessation intervention is currently recommended for older individuals with a history of heavy smoking. Tailoring tobacco treatment for this patient population of older, people who smoke (PWS) may improve cessation rates while efficiently using limited smoking cessation resources. Although some older people who smoke will need more intensive treatment to achieve sustained abstinence, others may be successful with less intensive treatment. A framework to identify them a priori would be helpful to distribute smoking cessation resources accordingly. Methods: Baseline demographic, smoking, and health data are reported from a randomized clinical trial of longitudinal smoking cessation interventions delivered in the setting of LCS. Candidate variables were factor analyzed to identify latent factors, or constructs, to identify subgroups of older participants among the heterogenous population of older people who smoke. Results: We identified three factor-derived constructs: self-reported health status, heaviness of smoking, and nicotine dependence. Nicotine dependence was moderately correlated with both of the other two factors. Conclusions: This factor analysis of baseline participant characteristics identified a set of latent constructs - based on a few practical clinical variables -- that can be used to classify the heterogenous population of older people who smoke to identify. We propose this framework to identify subgroups of people who smoke who might successfully quit with less intense treatment at the time of lung cancer screening.

Self-reported exercise capacity among current smokers eligible for lung cancer screening: Distribution and association with key comorbidities.

ONE CONCERN: as lung cancer screening (LCS) is implemented is that patients will be screened who are too ill to benefit. Poor exercise capacity (EC) predicts adverse outcomes following lung resection. OBJECTIVE: Describe the distribution of EC among smokers eligible for LCS and examine associations with comorbidities. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of tobacco treatment in the context of LCS. Participants responded regarding limitations in moderate activities, ability to climb stairs, and frequency of dyspnea on a scale from never/almost never to all or most of the time. Responses were assigned a numeric score and summed to categorize exercise limitation. Associations between poor EC and key comorbidities were examined using adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: 660 participants completed a survey with the following characteristics: 64.4% male, 89.5% white, mean age 64.5. Overall EC categories were: good 39.0%, intermediate 41.6%, and poor 19.4%.  Prevalence of poor EC was higher among patients with COPD (OR 4.62 95%CI 3.05-7.02), heart failure (OR 3.07 95%CI 1.62-5.82) and cardiovascular disease (OR 2.24, 95%CI 1.45-3.47), and was highest among patients with multimorbidity. Among patients with COPD and heart failure, 57% had poor and 0% had good EC. In adjusted logistic regression, only COPD and Charlson comorbidity index remained significantly associated with poor EC. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients eligible for LCS reported poor EC, with increased odds of poor EC among patients with comorbidities. More research is needed to determine how to best integrate EC and comorbidity into eligibility and shared decision-making conversations.

Impact of 2016 SCCT/STR guidelines for coronary artery calcium scoring of noncardiac chest CT scans on lung cancer screening CT reporting.

The 2016 SCCT/STR guideline for coronary artery calcification (CAC) scoring on non-cardiac chest CT (NCCT) scans explicitly calls for the reporting of CAC. Whether the publication of the 2016 SCCT/STR guideline has had any impact on CAC reporting in lung cancer screening (LCS) scans has not been investigated. Consecutive patients with a LCS scan were identified from the University of Minnesota LCS registry and evaluated for CAC reporting in 3 separate cohorts: 6 months before, 6 months after, and 1 year after the publication of the 2016 SCCT/STR guideline. Scans were evaluated for CAC and quantified using the Agatston method. CAC reporting, downstream testing and initiation of preventive therapy were assessed. Among 614 patients (50% male, mean age 64.1 ± 6.0 years), CAC was present in 460 (74.9%) with a median Agatston score of 62 (IQR 0, 230). Of these, 196 (31.9%) had a CAC score of 1-100, 125 (20.4%) had 101-300, and 118 (19.2%) had > 300. Overall, CAC was reported in 325 (70.7%) patients with CAC present. CAC reporting relative to publication of the 2016 SCCT/STR guideline was as follows: 6 months prior-74.1%, 6 months after-64.6%, and 1 year after-77.5%. In the 308 patients with a new diagnosis of sub-clinical CAD based on CAC presence, 6 (1.9%) patients were referred to cardiology, and 15 (4.9%) patients underwent testing for obstructive CAD. Only 6 (1.9%) and 9 (2.9%) patients were newly started on aspirin and statin respectively. CAC detected incidentally on lung cancer screening CT scans is prevalent, and rarely acted upon clinically. CAC reporting is fairly high, and publication of the 2016 SCCT/STR guideline for CAC scoring on NCCT scans did not have any significant impact on CAC reporting.

Recommendations to researchers for aiding in increasing American Indian representation in genetic research and personalized medicine.

Increasing American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) representation in genetic research is critical to ensuring that personalized medicine discoveries do not widen AI/AN health disparities by only benefiting well-represented populations. One reason for the under-representation of AIs/ANs in research is warranted research distrust due to abuse of some AI/AN communities in research. An approach to easing the tension between protecting AI/AN communities and increasing the representation of AI/AN persons in genetic research is community-based participatory research. This approach was used in a collaboration between a tribe and academic researchers in efforts to increase AI/AN participation in genetic research. From the lessons learned, the authors propose recommendations to researchers that may aid in conducting collaborative and respectful research with AI/AN tribes/communities and ultimately assist in increasing representation of AIs/ANs in personalized medicine discoveries.

Evidence That Established Lung Cancer Mortality Disparities in American Indians Are Not Due to Lung Cancer Genetic Testing and Targeted Therapy Disparities.

BACKGROUND: American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) continue to experience extreme lung cancer health disparities. The state of Minnesota is home to over 70,000 AI/AN, and this population has a 2-fold increase in lung cancer mortality compared to other races within Minnesota. Genetic mutation testing in lung cancer is now a standard of high-quality lung cancer care, and EGFR mutation testing has been recommended for all adenocarcinoma lung cases, regardless of smoking status. However, genetic testing is a controversial topic for some AI/AN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multisite retrospective chart review funded by the Minnesota Precision Medicine Grand Challenge as a demonstration project to examine lung cancer health disparities in AI/AN. We sought to measure epidemiology of lung cancer among AI receiving diagnosis or treatment in Minnesota cancer referral centers as well as rate of EGFR testing. The primary outcome was the rate of EGFR mutational analysis testing among cases and controls with nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer. We secured collaborations with 5 health care systems covering a diverse geographic and demographic population. RESULTS: We identified 200 cases and 164 matched controls from these sites. Controls were matched on histology, smoking status, sex, and age. In both groups, about one third of subjects with adenocarcinoma received genetic mutation testing. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in mutation testing in AI compared to non-AI controls at large health care systems in Minnesota. These data indicate that other factors are likely contributing to the higher mortality in this group.

Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Clinical Trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) Collaboration.

National recommendations for lung cancer screening for former and current smokers aged 55-80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history create demand to implement efficient and effective systems to offer smoking cessation on a large scale. These older, high-risk smokers differ from participants in past clinical trials of behavioral and pharmacologic interventions for tobacco dependence. There is a gap in knowledge about how best to design systems to extend reach and treatments to maximize smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. Eight clinical trials, seven funded by the National Cancer Institute and one by the Veterans Health Administration, address this gap and form the SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration. This paper describes methodological issues related to the design of these clinical trials: clinical workflow, participant eligibility criteria, screening indication (baseline or annual repeat screen), assessment content, interest in stopping smoking, and treatment delivery method and dose, all of which will affect tobacco treatment outcomes. Tobacco interventions consider the "teachable moment" offered by lung cancer screening, how to incorporate positive and negative screening results, and coordination of smoking cessation treatment with clinical events associated with lung cancer screening. Unique data elements, such as perceived risk of lung cancer and costs of tobacco treatment, are of interest. Lung cancer screening presents a new and promising opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality resulting from lung cancer that can be amplified by effective smoking cessation treatment. SCALE teamwork and collaboration promise to maximize knowledge gained from the clinical trials.

Randomized Electronic Promotion of Lung Cancer Screening: A Pilot.

PURPOSE: Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography is endorsed by the US Preventive Services Task Force, but many eligible patients have yet to be offered screening. Major barriers to the implementation of screening are physician and system related-the requirement for a detailed smoking history, including pack-years, to determine eligibility. We conducted this pilot to determine the feasibility of lung cancer screening (LCS) promotion that would offer screening to eligible persons and patient completion of smoking history to estimate the size of the population of former smokers who may be eligible for LCS in a single health care system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred participants were randomly selected from former smokers who were seen at the University of Minnesota Health in the past 2 years and assigned to control (usual care) and electronic promotion, stratified by age. Electronic messages to promote LCS were sent to an intervention group, including a link to complete a detailed smoking history in the electronic health record. RESULTS: Of 99 participants, 66 (67%) in the intervention group read the message, 24 (36%) of 66 responded, and 19 (79%) of 24 respondents completed the smoking history. Ten intervention participants and 13 usual care participants were eligible for screening on the basis of pack-year history. Four eligible participants underwent screening in the intervention group compared with one participant in the usual care group. CONCLUSION: Electronic promotion may help identify patients who are eligible for LCS but will not reliably reach all patients because of low response rates. In this sample of former smokers, the majority are ineligible for LCS on the basis of pack-year history. Electronic methods can improve documentation of smoking history.

Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose CT: Implementation Amid Changing Public Policy at One Health Care System.

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT has evolved rapidly in recent years since the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) results. Subsequent professional and governmental organization guidelines have shaped policy and reimbursement for the service. Increasingly available guidance describes eligible patients and components necessary for a high-quality lung cancer screening program; however, practical instruction and implementation experience is not widely reported. We launched a lung cancer screening program in the face of reimbursement and guideline uncertainties at a large academic health center. We report our experience with implementation, including challenges and proposed solutions. Initially, we saw less referrals than expected for screening, and many patients referred for screening did not clearly meet eligibility guidelines. We educated primary care providers and implemented system tools to encourage referral of eligible patients. Moreover, in response to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) final coverage determination, we report our programmatic adaptation to meet these requirements. In addition to the components common to all quality programs, individual health delivery systems will face unique barriers related to patient population, available resources, and referral patterns.