Tobacco Dependence Treatment in Oncology: Initial Patient Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Despite the importance of smoking cessation to cancer care treatment, historically, few cancer centers have provided treatment for tobacco dependence. To address this gap, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3i). As part of this effort, this study examined implementation outcomes in a cohort of cancer survivors (CSs) who smoked cigarettes in the first year of an ongoing process to develop and implement a robust Tobacco Treatment Service at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. We provide a comprehensive description of the new tobacco use assessment and referral process, and of the characteristics of cancer survivors who agreed to treatment including traditional tobacco-related psychosocial and cancer treatment-related characteristics and novel characteristics such as delay discounting rates. We also examine characteristic differences among those who agreed to treatment between those who attended and those who did not attend treatment. As the new tobacco assessment was implemented, the number of referrals increased dramatically. The mean number of treatment sessions attended was 4.45 (SD = 2.98) and the six-month point prevalence intention to treat abstinence rate among those who attended was 22.7%. However, only 6.4% agreed to treatment and 4% attended at least one treatment session. A large proportion of cancer survivors who agreed to treatment were women, of older age, of lower socioeconomic status (SES), and who had high levels of depressive symptomology. The findings demonstrate that the implementation of system changes can significantly improve the identification of cancer survivors who use tobacco and are referred to tobacco use treatment. Among those who attend, treatment is effective. However, the findings also suggest that a systematic assessment of barriers to engagement is needed and that cancer survivors may benefit from additional treatment tailoring. We present plans to address these implementation challenges. Systematic electronic medical record (EMR)-sourced referral to tobacco treatment is a powerful tool for reaching cancer survivors who smoke, but more research is needed to determine how to enhance engagement and tailor treatment processes.

Impact of changes in home smoking bans on tobacco cessation among quitline callers.

Home smoking bans may be an effective way to promote tobacco cessation among treatment seeking smokers. Few studies have examined this relationship in a quitline setting. Data were obtained from 14,296 adults who were enrolled in a state quitline between January 2011 and July 2016. This study investigated whether cessation rates varied by changes in home smoking ban implementation between enrollment and 7-month follow-up. The impact of changes in home smoking bans on cessation at follow-up was significantly modified by having other smokers living in the home at follow-up (P < 0.0001). Among callers who did not live with other smokers in the home, the highest odds ratio of 30-day cessation was for callers who reported bans at follow-up only (OR = 10.50, 95%CI: 8.00, 13.70), followed by callers who reported bans at both enrollment and follow-up (OR = 8.02, 95%CI: 6.27, 10.30) and callers who reported bans at enrollment only (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.47, 2.89) compared with callers with no home smoking bans. When callers reported that they lived with other smokers in the home, the effect of home smoking bans on cessation was much smaller. Quitlines should support the implementation of home smoking bans as a part of callers' goal setting activities to achieve tobacco cessation.

Focus Groups and In-depth Interviews to Guide the Development of Lung Cancer Screening Informational Materials.

Lung cancer is one of the most lethal cancers in the USA. In 2013, new guidelines issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography among a selected group of high-risk individuals. Specifically, lung cancer screening is recommended for heavy smokers between the ages of 55 to 79, with at least 30 pack-year smoking exposure. Former smokers who meet these guidelines and stopped smoking ≤ 15 years ago are also eligible. There is a need to promote lung cancer screening to increase early diagnosis rates and treatment options, thereby decreasing disease-specific mortality. This study was conducted to refine educational materials used to inform eligible high-risk individuals about the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening. Focus groups (n = 16) and in-depth telephone interviews (n = 5) were conducted among screening-eligible participants recruited from western New York. Main themes that emerged from the discussions included cost of obtaining the exam, eligibility criteria/information about the exam, apprehension regarding results, and an increased desire for discussions with their physician to learn more about the screening. The information gained from this study is vital to understanding concerns held by current and former smokers regarding lung cancer screening, as well as critical to determining which information is most valuable for decreasing barriers and correcting misperceptions about the lung cancer screening exam.

Gender differences in utilization of services and tobacco cessation outcomes at a state quitline.

Research suggests that women may have poorer tobacco cessation outcomes than men; however, the literature is somewhat mixed. Less is known about gender differences in cessation within quitline settings. This study examined gender differences in the utilization of services (i.e., coaching sessions, pharmacotherapy) and tobacco cessation among callers to the Arizona Smokers' Helpline (ASHLine). The study sample included callers enrolled in ASHLine between January 2011 and June 2016. We tracked number of completed coaching sessions. At the 7-month follow-up, callers retrospectively reported use of cessation pharmacotherapy (gum, patch, or lozenge), as well as current tobacco use. Associations between gender and tobacco cessation were tested using logistic regression models. At month 7, 36.4% of women (3,277/9,004) and 40.3% of men (2,960/7,341) self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence. Compared to men, fewer women reported using pharmacotherapy (women: 71.4% vs. men: 73.6%, p = .01) and completed at least five coaching sessions (women: 35.1% vs. men: 38.5%, p < .01). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, women had significantly lower odds of reporting tobacco cessation than men (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84 to 0.99). However, after further adjustment for use of pharmacotherapy and coaching, there was no longer a significant relationship between gender and tobacco cessation (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.06). Fewer women than men reported tobacco cessation. Women also had lower utilization of quitline cessation services. Although the magnitude of these differences were small, future research on improving the utilization of quitline services among women may be worth pursuing given the large-scale effects of tobacco.

Higher quality quit-date goal setting enhances quit attempts among quitline callers.

INTRODUCTION: At tobacco quitlines, coaching and cessation medications are commonly structured around setting a date for making a quit attempt. However, limited literature evaluating this practice suggests that callers do not routinely set quit-date goals. High quality goal setting may increase the frequency of caller quit attempts. In this study, we examine the quality of quit-date goal setting and its association with in-program quit attempts and the timing of callers' first quit attempt. METHODS: Using call recordings, we scored the quality of quit-date goal setting among 90 callers enrolled at Arizona Smokers' Helpline between August and December 2017. The primary exposure was quality of quit-date goal setting assessed using the Lorencatto et al. rating scale. Coding reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between quality of goal setting and in-program quit attempts (>24 h tobacco free). RESULTS: The mean quality goal setting score was 3.1 (range: -3 to 7). Sixty-nine callers (77%) set a quit date and 39 (43%) made a quit attempt. Compared to callers who experienced low-quality goal setting, the adjusted odds of in-program quitting for high quality goal setting was AOR=3.98 (95% CI: 1.55-10.20) and for making a quit attempt within two weeks OR=6.23 (95% CI: 1.52-25.49). CONCLUSIONS: Quit-date goal setting is an important element of quitline services and callers benefit from high quality quit-date goal setting. Quitlines should establish quality improvement measures to ensure that coaches are trained to provide high quality quit-date goal setting opportunities to all callers.

Nicotine replacement therapy distribution to light daily smokers calling a quitline.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing prevalence of lighter smokers presenting for cessation assistance, outcome-based recommendations are needed to inform nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) distribution protocols by quitlines. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was utilized to compare quit rates based on samples selected from the time period before and after NRT (gum or lozenge) was offered to light daily smokers (1-9 cigarettes) contacting the New York State Smokers' Quitline. Outcome measures included self-reported 7- and 30-day abstinence rates, numbers of daily cigarettes among continuing smokers, and cost per quit analyses. RESULTS: Among responders to the follow-up survey, quit rates were higher for those given NRT compared with those not offered NRT at both 7 (33.0% vs. 27.2%; Relative Risk [RR] = 2.25 [95% CI: 1.15, 4.40; p < .05]) and 30 days (28.0% vs. 21.9%; RR = 2.63 [95% CI: 1.25, 5.54; p < .05]). Similar results were obtained based on intent-to-treat analyses for both 7 (13.4% vs. 11.3%; RR = 1.92 [95% CI: 1.08, 3.39; p < .05]) and 30 days (11.4% vs. 9.1%; RR = 2.29 [95% CI: 1.20, 4.40; p < .05]). Among continuing smokers, the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day increased from enrollment to follow-up in both groups, but less so in those receiving NRT. The additional cost associated with providing a 2-week free supply of nicotine replacement to smokers was $52 for gum and $74 for lozenge. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that light daily smokers (1-9 cigarettes) who contact a telephone quitline are interested in using NRT if offered and are able to achieve higher quit rates compared with those not offered NRT.