Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). METHODS: Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit. CONCLUSIONS: There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context.

BACKGROUND: Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population. METHODS: An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel. RESULTS: Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs. CONCLUSION: An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.

Supporting patients to stop smoking when they attend lung cancer screening will improve the overall benefit and value for money of the service. This study developed a booklet containing pictures of a person's own lungs and heart taken during a lung cancer screening scan. The booklet shows areas of damage to the heart and lungs caused by smoking, delivered alongside positive messages to build confidence to stop smoking and let patients know about the benefits of stopping smoking. To develop the booklet, we worked with members of public who currently or used to smoke. Eight members of public completed a survey asking about the best ways to present information about risk. Thirteen members of the public took part in focus groups to co-develop the booklet. One workshop with academic and healthcare professionals and one workshop with a public involvement panel were held to develop and finalise the booklet. Members of the public said they wanted information about the short-term benefits of quitting smoking, and that coloured drawings next to the scan picture would help them to understand what the scan picture meant. Having someone specially trained to guide them through the booklet was considered important. Being told about their risk for lung cancer in the future was off-putting and might discourage a quit attempt. We have co-developed a booklet to support people to quit smoking when they go for lung cancer screening. The booklet is currently being tested to see whether it can support people to quit smoking.

Protocol for a feasibility study of a cancer symptom awareness campaign to support the rapid diagnostic centre referral pathway in a socioeconomically deprived area: Targeted Intensive Community-based campaign To Optimise Cancer awareness (TIC-TOC).

INTRODUCTION: Rapid diagnostic centres (RDCs) are being implemented across the UK to accelerate the assessment of vague suspected cancer symptoms. Targeted behavioural interventions are needed to augment RDCs that serve socioeconomically deprived populations who are disproportionately affected by cancer, have lower cancer symptom awareness and are less likely to seek help for cancer symptoms. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating a community-based vague cancer symptom awareness intervention in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Intervention materials and messages were coproduced with local stakeholders in Cwm Taf Morgannwg, Wales. Cancer champions will be trained to deliver intervention messages and distribute intervention materials using broadcast media (eg, local radio), printed media (eg, branded pharmacy bags, posters, leaflets), social media (eg, Facebook) and attending local community events. A cross-sectional questionnaire will include self-reported patient interval (time between noticing symptoms to contacting the general practitioner), cancer symptom recognition, cancer beliefs and barriers to presentation, awareness of campaign messages, healthcare resource use, generic quality of life and individual and area-level deprivation indicators. Consent rates and proportion of missing data for patient questionnaires (n=189) attending RDCs will be measured. Qualitative interviews and focus groups will assess intervention acceptability and barriers/facilitators to delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was given by the London-West London & GTAC Research Ethics (21/LO/0402). This project will inform a potential future controlled study to assess intervention effectiveness in reducing the patient interval for vague cancer symptoms. The results will be critical to informing national policy and practice regarding behavioural interventions to support RDCs in highly deprived populations.

Cancer symptom experience and help-seeking behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a cross-sectional population survey.

OBJECTIVES: To understand self-reported potential cancer symptom help-seeking behaviours and attitudes during the first 6 months (March-August 2020) of the UK COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: UK population-based survey conducted during August and September 2020. Correlates of help-seeking behaviour were modelled using logistic regression in participants reporting potential cancer symptoms during the previous 6 months. Qualitative telephone interviews with a purposeful subsample of participants, analysed thematically. SETTING: Online UK wide survey. PARTICIPANTS: 7543 adults recruited via Cancer Research UK online panel provider (Dynata) and HealthWise Wales (a national register of 'research ready' participants) supplemented with social media (Facebook and Twitter) recruitment. 30 participants were also interviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey measures included experiences of 15 potential cancer symptoms, help-seeking behaviour, barriers and prompts to help-seeking. RESULTS: Of 3025 (40.1%) participants who experienced a potential cancer symptom, 44.8% (1355/3025) had not contacted their general practitioner (GP). Odds of help-seeking were higher among participants with disability (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.38, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.71) and who experienced more symptoms (aOR=1.68, 95% CI 1.56 to 1.82), and lower among those who perceived COVID-19 as the cause of symptom(s) (aOR=0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.52). Barriers included worries about wasting the doctor's time (1158/7543, 15.4%), putting strain on healthcare services (945, 12.6%) and not wanting to make a fuss (907, 12.0%). Interviewees reported reluctance to contact the GP due to concerns about COVID-19 and fear of attending hospitals, and described putting their health concerns on hold. CONCLUSIONS: Many people avoided healthcare services despite experiencing potential cancer symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alongside current help-seeking campaigns, well-timed and appropriate nationally coordinated campaigns should signal that services are open safely for those with unusual or persistent symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17782018.

Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme.

INTRODUCTION: Integration of smoking cessation (SC) into lung cancer screening is essential to optimise clinical and cost effectiveness. The most effective way to use this 'teachable moment' is unclear. The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study will measure the effectiveness of an SC service integrated within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) and will test the efficacy of a personalised SC intervention, incorporating incidental findings detected on the low-dose CT scan performed as part of YLST. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Unless explicitly declined, all smokers enrolled in YLST will see an SC practitioner at baseline and receive SC support over 4 weeks comprising behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and/or a commercially available e-cigarette. Eligible smokers will be randomised (1:1 in permuted blocks of random size up to size 6) to receive either an enhanced, personalised SC support package, including CT scan images, or continued standard best practice. Anticipated recruitment is 1040 smokers (January 2019-December 2020). The primary objective is to measure 7-day point prevalent carbon monoxide (CO) validated SC after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include CO validated cessation at 4 weeks and 12 months, self-reported continuous cessation at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months, attempts to quit smoking and changes in psychological variables, including perceived risk of lung cancer, motivation to quit smoking tobacco, confidence and efficacy beliefs (self and response) at all follow-up points. A process evaluation will explore under which circumstances and on which groups the intervention works best, test intervention fidelity and theory test the mechanisms of intervention impact. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0199) and the Health Research Authority/Health and Care Research Wales. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and via the YLST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN63825779, NCT03750110.

Qualitative analysis of clinician experience in utilising the BuRN Tool (Burns Risk assessment for Neglect or abuse Tool) in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: The BuRN-Tool (Burns Risk assessment for Neglect or abuse Tool) is a clinical prediction tool (CPT) aiding the identification of child maltreatment in children with burn injuries. The tool has been derived from systematic reviews and epidemiological studies, validated and is under-going an implementation evaluation. Clinician opinion on the use of this CPT is a key part of its evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To explore the experience of emergency clinicians use of the BuRN-Tool in an emergency department (ED). METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted over a six-week period by the research team in the ED in the University Hospital of Wales; 25 emergency clinicians attended. A semi-structured approach was taken with pre-determined open-ended questions asked followed by a series of case vignettes to which the CPT was applied. The focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted for identification of pre-set and emergent themes. All data were double-coded. RESULTS: All participants said that it was acceptable to use the BuRN-Tool to aid in the decision-making process surrounding child maltreatment. All participants said that the BuRN-Tool was helpful and straight forward to use. All participants said that the tool was clinically beneficial, particularly for junior staff and those who do not always work in a paediatric environment. The clinical vignettes identified subjectivity in interpretation questions around adequate supervision, previous social care involvement and full thickness burns. This resulted in some variation in scoring. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that the BuRN-Tool is acceptable in an ED setting. The focus groups demonstrated a homogenous and positive attitude regarding the layout, benefits and use of the BuRN-Tool. The subjective interpretation of some variables accounts for the non-uniformity in the scores generated. Clarification of questions will be made.

Factors influencing child protection professionals' decision-making and multidisciplinary collaboration in suspected abusive head trauma cases: A qualitative study.

Clinicians face unique challenges when assessing suspected child abuse cases. The majority of the literature exploring diagnostic decision-making in this field is anecdotal or survey-based and there is a lack of studies exploring decision-making around suspected abusive head trauma (AHT). We aimed to determine factors influencing decision-making and multidisciplinary collaboration in suspected AHT cases, amongst 56 child protection professionals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (25), child protection social workers (10), legal practitioners (9, including 4 judges), police officers (8), and pathologists (4), purposively sampled across southwest United Kingdom. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and imported into NVivo for thematic analysis (38% double-coded). We identified six themes influencing decision-making: 'professional', 'medical', 'circumstantial', 'family', 'psychological' and 'legal' factors. Participants diagnose AHT based on clinical features, the history, and the social history, after excluding potential differential diagnoses. Participants find these cases emotionally challenging but are aware of potential biases in their evaluations and strive to overcome these. Barriers to decision-making include lack of experience, uncertainty, the impact on the family, the pressure of making the correct diagnosis, and disagreements between professionals. Legal barriers include alternative theories of causation proposed in court. Facilitators include support from colleagues and knowledge of the evidence-base. Participants' experiences with multidisciplinary collaboration are generally positive, however child protection social workers and police officers are heavily reliant on clinicians to guide their decision-making, suggesting the need for training on the medical aspects of physical abuse for these professionals and multidisciplinary training that provides knowledge about the roles of each agency.

Acceptability of the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) clinical prediction tool: A qualitative study with child protection professionals.

The validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool estimates the probability of abusive head trauma (AHT) based on combinations of six clinical features: head/neck bruising; apnea; seizures; rib/long-bone fractures; retinal hemorrhages. We aimed to determine the acceptability of PredAHT to child protection professionals. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 56 participants: clinicians (25), child protection social workers (10), legal practitioners (9, including 4 judges), police officers (8), and pathologists (4), purposively sampled across southwest United Kingdom. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and imported into NVivo for thematic analysis (38% double-coded). We explored participants' evaluations of PredAHT, their opinions about the optimal way to present the calculated probabilities, and their interpretation of probabilities in the context of suspected AHT. Clinicians, child protection social workers and police thought PredAHT would be beneficial as an objective adjunct to their professional judgment, to give them greater confidence in their decisions. Lawyers and pathologists appreciated its value for prompting multidisciplinary investigations, but were uncertain of its usefulness in court. Perceived disadvantages included: possible over-reliance and false reassurance from a low score. Interpretations regarding which percentages equate to 'low', 'medium' or 'high' likelihood of AHT varied; participants preferred a precise % probability over these general terms. Participants would use PredAHT with provisos: if they received multi-agency training to define accepted risk thresholds for consistent interpretation; with knowledge of its development; if it was accepted by colleagues. PredAHT may therefore increase professionals' confidence in their decision-making when investigating suspected AHT, but may be of less value in court.