Associations of demographic and tobacco use characteristics with young adults' self-reported clinical encounters: Implications for cessation efforts.

Introduction: Accelerating smoking cessation, particularly among young adults, is a national priority for decreasing tobacco-related disease. Healthcare providers play a critical role in delivering tobacco treatment interventions to this population. This study examined associations of demographic and tobacco use characteristics with young adults' self-reported past-year clinical encounters to identify opportunities to facilitate cessation. Methods: We conducted cross-sectional, secondary analyses on a sample of 831 young adults aged 18-34 participating in the first wave of the National Young Adult Health Survey (NYAHS 2018-2019). Demographic and tobacco use characteristics were participants' sex, age, race, current cigarette use, and current other tobacco use. Clinical encounter outcomes were past-year self-report of (1) seeing a clinician, (2) being asked about tobacco use, and among those currently smoking, (3) being advised to quit smoking. Results: After adjustment for covariates, women (vs. men) had 2.16 times greater odds of reporting seeing a clinician, while Non-White (vs. White) young adults and those currently (vs. never) smoking had 69% and 47% lower odds. Women and those currently smoking had 2.98 and 2.66 times greater odds, respectively, of being asked about tobacco use. Among those who currently smoked, being not confident (vs. confident) about quitting smoking was associated with 69% lower odds of being advised to quit; those who reported moderate (vs. low) nicotine dependence had 3.11 times higher odds of being advised to quit. Conclusions: Sex, racial, and smoking status differences in young adults' clinical encounter outcomes suggest multiple opportunities for future smoking prevention and cessation intervention efforts.

The TELEhealth Shared decision-making Coaching and Navigation in Primary carE (TELESCOPE) intervention: a study protocol for delivering shared decision-making for lung cancer screening by patient navigators.

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality but has potential harms for patients. A shared decision-making (SDM) conversation about LCS is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for LCS reimbursement. To overcome barriers to SDM in primary care, this protocol describes a telehealth decision coaching intervention for LCS in primary care clinics delivered by patient navigators. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation potential, compared with an enhanced usual care (EUC) arm. Methods: Patients (n = 420) of primary care clinicians (n = 120) are being recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial. Clinicians are randomly assigned to 1) TELESCOPE intervention: prior to an upcoming non-acute clinic visit, patients participate in a telehealth decision coaching session about LCS delivered by trained patient navigators and nurse navigators place a low-dose CT scan (LDCT) order for each TELESCOPE patient wanting LCS, or 2) EUC: patients receive enhanced usual care from a clinician. Usual care is enhanced by providing clinicians in both arms with access to a Continuing Medical Education (CME) webinar about LCS and an LCS discussion guide. Patients complete surveys at baseline and 1-week after the scheduled clinic visit to assess quality of the SDM process. Re-navigation is attempted with TELESCOPE patients who have not completed the LDCT within 3 months. One month before being due for an annual screening, TELESCOPE patients whose initial LCS showed low-risk findings are randomly assigned to receive a telehealth decision coaching booster session with a navigator or no booster. Electronic health records are abstracted at 6, 12 and 18 months after the initial decision coaching session (TELESCOPE) or clinic visit (EUC) to assess initial and annual LCS uptake, imaging results, follow-up testing for abnormal findings, cancer diagnoses, treatment, and tobacco treatment referrals. This study will evaluate factors that facilitate or interfere with program implementation using mixed methods. Discussion: We will assess whether a decision coaching and patient navigation intervention can feasibly support high-quality SDM for LCS and guideline-concordant LCS uptake for patients in busy primary care practices serving diverse patient populations. Trial Registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05491213) on August 4, 2022.

Aligning patient values and code status: Choice of Diction's Effect (CODE) study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding resuscitation after cardiac arrest are critical from ethical, patient satisfaction, outcome, and healthcare cost standpoints. Physician-reported discussion barriers include topic discomfort, fear of time commitment, and difficulty articulating end-of-life concepts. The influence of language used in these discussions has not been tested. This study explored whether utilizing the alternate term "allow (a) natural death" changed code status decisions in hospitalized patients versus "do not resuscitate" (DNR). METHODS: All patients age 65 and over admitted to a general medicine hospital teaching service were screened (English-speaking, not ICU-level care, no active psychiatric illness, no substance misuse, no active DNR). Participants were randomized to resuscitation discussions with either DNR or "allow natural death" as the "no code" phrasing. Outcomes included patient resuscitation decision, satisfaction with and duration of the conversation, and decision correlation with illness severity and predicted resuscitation success. RESULTS: 102 participants were randomized to the "allow natural death" (N = 49) or DNR (N = 53) arms. The overall "no code" rate for our sample of hospitalized general medicine inpatients age >65 was 16.7%, with 13% in the DNR and 20.4% in the "allow natural death" arms (p = 0.35). Discussion length was similar in the DNR and "allow natural death" arms (3.9 + 3.2 vs. 4.9 + 3.9 minutes), and not significantly different (p = 0.53). Over 90% of participants were highly satisfied with their code status decision, without difference between arms (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Participants' code status discussions did not differ in "no code" rate between "allow natural death" and DNR arms but were short in length and had high patient satisfaction. Previously reported code status discussion barriers were not encountered. It is appropriate to screen code status in all hospitalized patients regardless of phrasing used.

Measurement of cigarette relighting: A common but understudied behavior.

OBJECTIVE: Relighting, i.e., extinguishing, saving, and later relighting and smoking unfinished cigarettes, appears prevalent, may be associated with nicotine dependence and negative health outcomes, yet is poorly understood. We estimate the prevalence, frequency, correlates of, and reasons for, cigarette relighting. METHODS: Survey respondents (n=676) were 18-45-year-old US-based Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) participants who smoked cigarettes every/some days. Items assessed frequency of and reasons for relighting. Reported smoking sessions per day were compared to calculations based on reported cigarettes per day (CPD) and relighting frequency. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of those who smoked reported relighting cigarettes. Reasons included not having time to finish (77%), not feeling like finishing (75%), saving money or avoiding wasting (70%), and making cigarettes last longer (59%). Nearly half (44%) relight to cut down and 34% to reduce harm. Hispanic (OR=1.73, CI:1.03-2.91) and non-Hispanic Black respondents (OR= 2.23, CI:1.20-4.10) had higher odds of relighting than others, as did those who smoke within 30minutes of waking (OR=2.45, CI:1.33-4.52) or wake up at night to smoke (OR=2.40, CI:1.68-3.44) (all ps <0.05). Respondents demonstrated low consistency in reporting the number of times they smoke (first-lit and relit) compared to calculations based on CPD and relighting frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Relighting is associated with race, ethnicity, nicotine dependence, and is often done to save money, cut down smoking, and reduce harm. Among those who relight, "smoking session" frequency seemed to be underestimated. Single item smoking frequency measures may not be ideal for individuals who smoke and relight.

Prevalence and predictors of colon and prostate cancer screening among volunteer firefighters: The United States Firefighter Cancer Assessment and Prevention Study.

BACKGROUND: Although firefighters have increased risk for colon and prostate cancer, limited information exists on screening practices for these cancers in volunteer firefighters who compose two-thirds of the US fire service. We estimated the prevalence of colon and prostate cancer screening among volunteer firefighters using eligibility criteria from 4 evidence-based screening recommendations and evaluated factors influencing screening. METHODS: We evaluated colon (n = 569) and prostate (n = 498) cancer screening prevalence in a sample of US volunteer firefighters using eligibility criteria from the US Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF), National Fire Protection Association, American Cancer Society, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. We assessed associations with fire service experience, demographics, and cancer risk perception based on USPSTF guidelines. RESULTS: For those eligible based on USPSTF guidelines, colon and prostate cancer screening prevalence was 51.7% (95% CI: 45.7, 57.8) and 48.8% (95% CI: 40.0, 57.6), respectively. Higher odds of colon and prostate cancer screening were observed with older age and with some college education compared to those with less education. Fire service experience and cancer risk perception were not associated with screening practices. CONCLUSION: This is the first large study to assess colon and prostate cancer screening among US volunteer firefighters based on different screening guidelines. Our findings suggest gaps in cancer prevention efforts in the US volunteer fire service. Promoting cancer screening education and opportunities for volunteer firefighters by their fire departments, healthcare professionals, and public health practitioners, may help to address the gaps.

Prevalence and predictors of skin cancer screening among a sample of US volunteer firefighters.

BACKGROUND: Firefighters have a higher risk of melanoma incidence and mortality compared to the general population. In the United States (US), the National Fire Protection Association recommends all firefighters receive annual skin cancer screening through visual skin examination by a clinician. However, there is limited information on skin cancer screening practices among volunteer firefighters who comprise two-thirds of the US fire service. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of 552 US volunteer firefighters estimated the prevalence of skin cancer screening and evaluated associations with their fire service experience, demographics, sun protection practices, and cancer risk perception. RESULTS: The prevalence of receiving skin cancer screening among volunteer firefighters was 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.4, 29.8). The odds of being screened for skin cancer, compared to not being screened, were twice as high for firefighters who used sunscreen (odds ratio [OR]: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.48, 3.73) and who perceived their skin likely to burn with prolonged sun exposure (OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.10, 3.00). Older age, some college education, and family history of skin cancer were also positively associated with skin cancer screening. A positive exposure-response relationship was observed between more monthly firefighting calls and receiving screening. Cancer risk perception was not associated with screening. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first large study to assess skin cancer screening among US volunteer firefighters. Our findings suggest gaps in skin cancer prevention efforts in the volunteer fire service. Additional assessment of skin cancer prevention practices within volunteer fire departments could help address these gaps.

Electronic Health Record Prompt to Improve Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Combusted tobacco use, the primary risk factor, accounts for 90% of all lung cancers. Early detection of lung cancer improves survival, yet lung cancer screening rates are much lower than those of other cancer screening tests. Electronic health record (EHR) systems are an underutilized tool that could improve screening rates. METHODS: This study was conducted in the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Group, a university-affiliated network in New Brunswick, NJ. Two novel EHR workflow prompts were implemented on July 1, 2018. These prompts included fields to determine tobacco use and lung cancer screening eligibility and facilitated low-dose computed tomography ordering for eligible patients. The prompts were designed to improve tobacco use data entry, allowing for better lung cancer screening eligibility identification. Data were analyzed in 2022 retrospectively for the period July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. The analyses represented 48,704 total patient visits. RESULTS: The adjusted odds of patient record completeness to determine eligibility for low-dose computed tomography (AOR=1.19, 95% CI=1.15, 1.23), eligibility for low-dose computed tomography (AOR=1.59, 95% CI=1.38, 1.82), and whether low-dose computed tomography was ordered (AOR=1.04, 95% CI=1.01, 1.07) all significantly increased after the electronic medical record prompts were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show the utility and benefit of EHR prompts in primary care settings to increase identification for lung cancer screening eligibility as well as increased low-dose computed tomography ordering.

US Physicians' Self-reported Discussions About Tobacco-Free Nicotine Pouches During Clinical Encounters With Patients in 2021.

This survey study assesses the extent to which physicians discussed tobacco-free nicotine pouches during clinical encounters with patients.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time. RESULTS: The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.