Health Insurance Navigation Tools Intervention: A Pilot Trial Within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

PURPOSE: Childhood cancer survivors are at increased risk for underinsurance and health insurance-related financial burden. Interventions targeting health insurance literacy (HIL) to improve the ability to understand and use health insurance are needed. METHODS: We codeveloped a four-session health insurance navigation tools (HINT) intervention, delivered synchronously by a patient navigator, and a corresponding booklet. We conducted a randomized pilot trial with survivors from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study comparing HINT with enhanced usual care (EUC; booklet). We assessed feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy (HIL, primary outcome; knowledge and confidence with health insurance terms and activity) on a 5-month survey and exit interviews. RESULTS: Among 231 invited, 82 (32.5%) survivors enrolled (53.7% female; median age 39 years, 75.6% had employer-sponsored insurance). Baseline HIL scores were low (mean = 28.5; 16-64; lower scores better); many lacked knowledge of Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions. 80.5% completed four HINT sessions, and 93.9% completed the follow-up survey. Participants rated HINT's helpfulness a mean of 8.9 (0-10). Exit interviews confirmed HINT's acceptability, specifically its virtual and personalized delivery and helpfulness in building confidence in understanding one's coverage. Compared with EUC, HINT significantly improved HIL (effect size = 0.94. P < .001), ACA provisions knowledge (effect size = 0.73, P = .003), psychological financial hardship (effect size = 0.64, P < .006), and health insurance satisfaction (effect size = 0.55, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Results support the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual health insurance navigation program targeted for childhood survivors to improve HIL. Randomized trials to assess the efficacy and sustainability of health insurance navigation on HIL and financial burden are needed.

Patient-Reported Receipt of Oncology Clinician-Delivered Brief Tobacco Treatment (5As) Six Months following Cancer Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking after a cancer diagnosis represents a modifiable health risk. It is recommended that oncology clinicians address tobacco use among their patients using the 5As brief model: Asking about use, Advising users to quit, Assessing willingness to quit, Assisting in quit attempts (counseling and medication), and Arranging follow-up. However, cross-sectional studies have found limited adoption of 5As (especially Assist and Arrange) in oncology settings. Further investigation is needed to understand changes in, and factors associated with, 5As delivery over time. METHODS: Patients recently diagnosed with cancer and reporting current smoking (N = 303) enrolled in a smoking cessation clinical trial and completed three longitudinal surveys; at pre-intervention baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up post-enrollment. Patient-level correlates of 5As receipt at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months were identified using multilevel regression models. RESULTS: At baseline, patient-reported rates of 5As receipt from oncology clinicians ranged from 85.17% (Ask) to 32.24% (Arrange). Delivery declined from baseline to 6-month follow-up for all 5As, with the largest declines observed for Ask, Advise, Assess, and Assist-Counseling. Diagnosis of a smoking-related cancer was associated with greater odds of 5As receipt at baseline but lower odds at 6-month follow-up. At each time point, female gender, religiosity, advanced disease, cancer-related stigma, and smoking abstinence were associated with lower odds of 5As receipt, while reporting a recent quit attempt prior to enrollment was associated with higher odds of 5As receipt. CONCLUSION: Oncology clinicians' 5As delivery declined over time. Clinician delivery of the 5As varied based on patients' sociodemographics, clinical and smoking characteristics, and psychosocial factors.

Patients With Serious Mental Illness Can Engage in Tobacco Treatment Trials and Tobacco Cessation Interventions During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: More than half of individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke, contributing to premature cancer mortality. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist with smoking cessation; however, supportive oncology trials frequently exclude patients with SMI. To fill this gap, we examined differences in engagement and tobacco cessation in a pragmatic clinical trial. METHODS: We recruited 303 participants from two National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, of which 10% had prior diagnoses of SMI (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders). We compared self-reported smoking behaviors, patient attitudes and beliefs about cessation, and rates of trial completion, engagement, and smoking abstinence among recently diagnosed patients with cancer with and without SMI. Six months after trial completion, we completed qualitative interviews on barriers and facilitators to tobacco cessation in a random sample of participants with SMI. RESULTS: Trial participants with SMI had similar motivation to quit smoking as those without SMI. Additionally, participants with SMI had a similar ability to engage in a tobacco treatment trial (6.5 counseling sessions completed v 7.3 sessions) and benefit from tobacco treatment as those without SMI (32.3% v 27.8% 6-month quit rates). CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer and SMI were able to engage in and benefit from a tobacco cessation trial integrated into cancer care. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist patients with SMI with smoking cessation referrals and treatment. Pragmatic supportive oncology trials that include a diverse population of adults with SMI are needed to inform care delivery and improve cancer outcomes for patients with SMI and cancer.

Long-term follow-up of smokers following lung and colorectal cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis limits the effectiveness of treatment, increases the risk of cancer recurrence or secondary malignancies, and is associated with poorer quality of life and survival. A cancer diagnosis may provide a meaningful timepoint for quitting, but the prevalence and characteristics of continued smoking through survivorship are poorly understood. METHODS: In the multi-regional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) cohort, we examined smoking rates and factors associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up among lung and colorectal cancer patients. This paper builds upon previous CanCORS participant data addressing quit rates and associated characteristics at baseline and 5 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: At long-term follow-up (median 7.3 years post-diagnosis [IQR = 5.9-8.7]), 16.7% of lung cancer and 11.6% of colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke combustible cigarettes. Factors independently associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up included being male, younger, not married or partnered, having Medicare, Medicaid/other public or no insurance, more depression symptoms, smoking more cigarettes per day, and having a history of lung disease (p < .05). Continued smoking did not vary by lung vs. colorectal cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Of active smokers at the time of diagnosis, an important minority of lung and colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke well into survivorship. Understanding characteristics associated with continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis may help inform the development of tobacco treatment programs for cancer patients and survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS: While addressing smoking cessation at the time of diagnosis is critical to ensure better long-term treatment outcomes and quality of life, it is essential to continue smoking cessation discussions and efforts throughout care and survivorship.

Longitudinal Electronic Cigarette Use Among Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many cancer patients who smoke report concurrent e-cigarette use. Using a mixed-methods approach, we aimed to (1) describe longitudinal e-cigarette use over 6 months after a cancer diagnosis and (2) assess the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, among cancer patients in a smoking cessation trial. AIMS AND METHODS: Data were from a 2-site randomized controlled trial of Standard (brief counseling) versus Intensive treatment (sustained counseling plus smoking cessation medication) in individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer. Participants (n = 303) reported e-cigarette use at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Biochemically-verified past 7-day cigarette abstinence was collected at 6 months. Qualitative interviews at 6 months explored factors related to e-cigarette use. RESULTS: E-cigarette use prevalence was highest between baseline and 3 months (16%) and declined over time. Participants using e-cigarettes at follow-up had higher baseline cigarette dependence and smoked more heavily. Multivariable analyses found no significant association between follow-up e-cigarette use and 6-month cigarette abstinence. E-cigarette use at follow-up was higher in the Standard versus Intensive treatment group (p = .003 and .001 at 3 and 6 mo, respectively). Smoking cessation and health concerns were primary reasons for using e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in a smoking cessation intervention trial, e-cigarette use during trial participation was not associated with smoking abstinence. Individuals who chose to use e-cigarettes were less likely to be receiving intensive cessation support as part of the trial. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation in cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS: E-cigarette use was not associated with cigarette abstinence at 6 months among adults who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Individuals with easier access to evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may be less likely to use e-cigarettes.

Corrigendum to "Examining the effects of stress and psychological distress on smoking abstinence in cancer patients" [Prev. Med. Rep. 23 (2021) 101402].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101402.].

Investigating documentation of alcohol and non-medical substance use in oncology treatment: an electronic health record review.

PURPOSE: Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU. METHODS: We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented). RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use). CONCLUSIONS: About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment.

Examining the effects of stress and psychological distress on smoking abstinence in cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients who smoke report more stress and psychological distress than patients who do not smoke. It is unclear how these emotional symptoms may modify smoking behavior in cancer patients. We examined the influence of a smoking cessation intervention for cancer patients on stress and distress, and the effects of these symptoms on smoking abstinence. METHODS: Mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the Smokefree Support Study, a two-site randomized controlled trial examining the efficacy of Intensive (IT; n = 153) vs. Standard Treatment (ST; n = 150) for smoking cessation in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Stress coping, perceived stress, distress, and anxiety were self-reported at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Abstinence was biochemically-confirmed at 6 months. A subset of patients (n = 72) completed qualitative exit-interviews. RESULTS: Patients were on average, 58 years old, 56% female, and smoked a median of 10 cigarettes/day. There were no significant treatment group × time interactions or main effects of treatment group on stress or distress measures (p's > 0.05), however there were significant main effects of time suggesting symptom improvements on each measure in both study groups (p's < 0.05). In adjusted logistic regression models, lower levels anxiety at 3 months predicted confirmed smoking abstinence at 6 months (p = .03). Qualitatively, at 6 months, patients reported their stress and smoking were connected and that the cessation counseling was helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial report decreases in stress, distress and anxiety over time, and anxiety symptoms may impact smoking cessation success at follow-up resulting in an important intervention target.

Examining the effects of problematic alcohol use on cigarette abstinence in recently diagnosed cancer patients enrolled in a cessation trial: A secondary analysis.

AIMS: Among people with cancer, dual alcohol and tobacco use increases risk for morbidity and mortality. Most smoking cessation clinical trials with this patient population have excluded individuals with problematic alcohol use. This investigation examined whether problematic alcohol use affects smoking cessation in cancer patients. METHODS: Mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the Smokefree Support Study, a randomized-controlled trial examining the efficacy of Intensive (IT; n = 153) vs. Standard Treatment (ST; n = 150) for smoking cessation in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Problematic alcohol use was assessed at enrollment using the Cut-Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye-Opener (CAGE), weekly frequency of alcohol use and binge drinking measures. Alcohol use was categorized as: no current alcohol use, moderate and problematic use. The primary outcome was biochemically-confirmed cigarette abstinence at 6-months. A subset of patients (n = 72) completed qualitative exit-interviews. RESULTS: Among all participants, biochemically-confirmed cigarette abstinence rates were 25% (n = 32), 28% (n = 27), and 36% (n = 20) for participants reporting no current alcohol use, moderate use, and problematic use, respectively (p = 0.33). In logistic regression analysis, neither problematic alcohol use (AOR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.35-2.67, p = .94) nor the problematic use by study arm interaction (AOR = 2.22, 95% CI = 0.59-8.39, p = .24) were associated with biochemically-confirmed 6-month abstinence. Qualitatively, participants reported that drinking alcohol triggers urges to smoke. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed cancer patients reporting problematic alcohol use were not less likely to quit smoking than those without. Additional research is needed to investigate whether problematic alcohol users may benefit from smoking and alcohol behavior change interventions at the time of cancer diagnosis.

Effect of Sustained Smoking Cessation Counseling and Provision of Medication vs Shorter-term Counseling and Medication Advice on Smoking Abstinence in Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Persistent smoking may cause adverse outcomes among patients with cancer. Many cancer centers have not fully implemented evidence-based tobacco treatment into routine care. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of sustained telephone counseling and medication (intensive treatment) compared with shorter-term telephone counseling and medication advice (standard treatment) to assist patients recently diagnosed with cancer to quit smoking. Design, Setting, and Participants: This unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital/Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Adults who had smoked 1 cigarette or more within 30 days, spoke English or Spanish, and had recently diagnosed breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, lung, lymphoma, or melanoma cancers were eligible. Enrollment occurred between November 2013 and July 2017; assessments were completed by the end of February 2018. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intensive treatment (n = 153) and the standard treatment (n = 150) received 4 weekly telephone counseling sessions and medication advice. The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly telephone counseling sessions and choice of Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were treatment utilization rates. Results: Among 303 patients who were randomized (mean age, 58.3 years; 170 women [56.1%]), 221 (78.1%) completed the trial. Six-month biochemically confirmed quit rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]; odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.13-3.27]; P < .02). The median number of counseling sessions completed was 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group. A total of 97 intensive treatment participants (77.0%) vs 68 standard treatment participants (59.1%) reported cessation medication use (difference, 17.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-29.5%]; odds ratio, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; P = .003). The most common adverse events in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccups (n = 4 and n = 1), mouth irritation (n = 4 and n = 0), difficulty sleeping (n = 3 and n = 2), and vivid dreams (n = 3 and n = 2). Conclusions and Relevance: Among smokers recently diagnosed with cancer in 2 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, sustained counseling and provision of free cessation medication compared with 4-week counseling and medication advice resulted in higher 6-month biochemically confirmed quit rates. However, the generalizability of the study findings is uncertain and requires further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01871506.

Project reach: Piloting a risk-tailored smoking cessation intervention for lung screening.

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a telephone-based smoking cessation intervention for lung screening patients. Participants (N = 39) were enrolled in a single-arm pilot study of a four-session telephone-based intervention. Self-report measures were completed at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. Participants were long-term smokers; 62 percent were not motivated to quit. Twenty-three percent attempted quitting, 29 percent decreased their smoking, and 11 percent reported abstinence. Confidence increased (p < .001) and there were trends toward increased importance (p = .09) and comparative disease risk (p = .02). This intervention was acceptable and associated with improvements in smoking-related beliefs and behaviors.

Racial Differences in Smoking-related Disease Risk Perceptions Among Adults Completing Lung Cancer Screening: Follow-up Results from the ACRIN/NLST Ancillary Study.

Previous work suggests that, compared to white adults, black adults have lower perceived risk for smoking-related diseases (SRDs), which may influence cessation behavior and health outcomes; however, racial differences in SRD risk perceptions among high-risk patients (i.e., a group that exhibits elevated risk for SRDs) following lung screening remain unknown. This paper thus examined differences in risk perceptions for lung cancer and other SRDs among black and white National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants. We administered a 10-item measure of perceived lifetime risk of lung cancer and other SRD (Smoking Risk Perceptions Scale; SRPS) to NLST participants at 1 year following lung screening to (1) establish the internal consistency of the SRPS for both black and white participants, (2) compare smoking-related disease risk perceptions between black and white participants, and (3) identify predictors of risk perceptions for black and white participants using multivariable linear regression models. We determined the SRPS items loaded onto two factors (personal and comparative risks; Cronbach's alpha = 0.93 and 0.95 for 1743 white and 194 black participants, respectively), thus demonstrating high internal consistency for both black and white adults. Compared to white participants, black adults demonstrated lower SRD risk perceptions (SRPS range = 10-50, mean difference = 2.55, SE = 0.50, p < 0.001), even after adjusting for smoking status and sociodemographics. Younger age, female gender, higher education, white race, and current smoking status were independently associated with high risk perceptions. Sociodemographic factors associated with lower risk perceptions resemble factors related to continued smoking. Findings suggest current and former black smokers are at risk of having lower risk perceptions for lung cancer and SRDs than white adults following lung cancer screening; these differences may explain observed racial differences in cessation outcomes. Although similar factors influence black and white adults' beliefs, risk perceptions may differentially impact smoking behavior among these groups. Behavior change models that guide tobacco treatment approaches, particularly for high-risk black smokers, should consider the influence of cultural factors on risk perceptions and cessation efforts.