Cannabis use after a cancer diagnosis in a population-based sample of cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to characterize the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use and the methods and reasons for use among recently diagnosed cancer survivors in a population sample within Washington state. METHODS: We identified individuals diagnosed with invasive cancers in the prior 6 to 17 months from April 2020 to December 2020 using the Seattle-Puget Sound Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry. Participants (n = 1,515) completed a questionnaire, including demographics, medical history, cannabis use, and other substance use. Cancer characteristics and date of diagnosis were obtained from SEER registry data. We calculated weighted prevalence estimates and logistic regression models to evaluate correlates of cannabis use. RESULTS: Overall, 41.3% of survivors reported cannabis use at any time after diagnosis, most commonly via edibles (60.5%) and smoking (43.8%). The most frequently reported reasons for use were sleep (54.5%), mood, stress, anxiety, and depression (44.3%), pain (42.3%), and recreation (42.3%). Cannabis use was associated with younger age, race (White vs. Asian), less education, former or current smoking, consuming more than 2 alcohol-containing drinks per day, having late-stage cancer, and cancer site. CONCLUSION: In this first evaluation of cannabis use in a registry-linked, population-based sample of survivors of all cancer types, based in a state where recreational and medical cannabis have been legal for a decade, approximately 2 in 5 survivors reported post-diagnosis use. Given how common cannabis use is among cancer survivors, there is a great need to understand its impact on cancer treatment outcomes and the overall health of cancer survivors.

Behavioral Activation mHealth Application for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral activation (BA) is an effective intervention for both depression and substance use disorders. Combining BA with a standard smoking cessation intervention may improve quit rates by addressing depressive symptoms, a key barrier to quitting. This study preliminarily evaluated the acceptability and efficacy of the BA-based Actify! mobile health application (mHealth app) for smoking cessation. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (n=242) comparing Actify! with the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) app for smoking cessation (QuitGuide) on acceptability (user satisfaction, app openings), smoking abstinence, and mechanisms of change (behavioral activation and depressive symptoms) at 8 weeks and 6 months post-randomization. Participants were US adults recruited online who smoked daily. RESULTS: Treatment satisfaction was uniformly higher in the Actify! arm. Number of app openings was similar across arms (M=34.3 openings over 8 weeks in both arms). Self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 8 weeks was 12.6% for Actify! vs. 7.3% for QuitGuide. Differences in 30-day PPA continued through 6 months (18.5% for Actify! vs. 12.2% for QuitGuide). Changes between baseline and 8 weeks in depressive symptoms and behavioral activation favored Actify!. Planned subgroup analyses suggested greater benefit of Actify! among participants with pre-treatment mild to moderate depression symptom severity compared to those with no depression symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Actify! showed considerable promise as a novel mHealth treatment, as evidenced by high usage and higher user satisfaction and quit rates than QuitGuide at both short- and long-term follow-up. The next step is to evaluate Actify! in a fully-powered efficacy trial. IMPLICATIONS: Study findings demonstrate the promise of a behavioral activation (BA)-based mobile health app (Actify!) for smoking cessation as a population-level intervention that can effectively address depressive symptoms as a risk factor for worse smoking treatment outcomes. The Actify! app is the first standalone BA-based app to demonstrate potential for improved acceptability and efficacy relative to a standard care comparison app, with user satisfaction and smoking quit rates descriptively exceeding those of the National Cancer Institute's QuitGuide app.

Associations of Sexual Orientation-Related Minority and Military Stressors with Past-Year Cigarette Use among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals and Veterans are more likely to report current smoking than the general adult population in the United States. The Minority Stress Model may explain the high prevalence of cigarette smoking among LGB individuals, who experience unique interpersonal (e.g., discrimination) and intrapersonal (e.g., identity concealment) stressors related to their minoritized sexual orientation. This study assessed whether three types of stressors (interpersonal, intrapersonal, and LGB-specific military) were associated with past-year smoking among LGB Veterans. METHODS: Veterans were recruited online for a prospective cohort study. We conducted secondary data analysis of baseline surveys collected from 2019-2020. The study sample included cisgender, LGB Veterans (n=463). Adjusted nested multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of each stressor with past-year cigarette smoking. RESULTS: Participants were mostly male (54.0%), non-Hispanic White (82.1%), and at least a college graduate (58.5%). LGB Veterans who were younger, had lower levels of education, income, and healthcare coverage, higher general stressors, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression symptoms were more likely to smoke in the past year (n=98, 21.2%). The adjusted odds of past-year smoking were higher among those who reported higher levels of harassment (aOR=1.13, 95%CI: 1.01-1.26), victimization (aOR=1.13, 95%CI: 1.02-1.43), and family rejection (aOR=1.13, 95%CI: 1.08-1.36). CONCLUSION: Multiple interpersonal stressors were associated with past-year smoking, highlighting the need to intervene on these stressors. Future interventions should aim to address policies that reduce prejudice against LGB Veterans, while helping those who smoke identify and develop positive coping skills that support cessation. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings contribute to the growing body of literature on tobacco use disparities among LGB individuals, particularly LGB Veterans. Results of this analysis provide some evidence for the Minority Stress Model as a conceptual model for understanding and intervening on disparities in smoking prevalence among LGB Veterans.

Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Interventions for Sexual and/or Gender Minority-Identified People and the Theories That Underpin Them: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: This scoping review takes stock of the social and behavior change theories that have underpinned tobacco interventions tailored to sexual and/or gender minority (SGM) people and reflects on the need to target contextually based drivers of SGM tobacco use inequities. AIMS AND METHODS: Data sources were Medline (Ovid), Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar (January 01, 1946 to October 27, 2022). Peer-reviewed publications in English from anywhere in the world describing SGM-tailored tobacco cessation and/or prevention interventions were independently identified by a librarian and screened by the first and third authors. Three hundred and sixty-seven articles were extracted; an additional two were found by hand searching. A total of 369 articles were assessed for eligibility. Exclusion criteria were: Not an intervention, review article, not SGM-tailored, or tobacco-focused. We documented the intervention name, intervention components, theoretical frameworks cited in reference to intervention design and/or implementation, and evaluation outcomes. All authors provided input on theoretical framework categorization. RESULTS: We identified 22 publications corresponding to 15 unique interventions. Individual-level behavior change theories (ie, those focusing on within-person behavior change processes) were the most prominent. Among these, the Transtheoretical Model was the most frequently utilized, while Social Inoculation Theory, Theory of Reasoned Action, and Theory of Psychological Reactance were also employed. A minority of interventions referenced frameworks that more explicitly engaged with SGM people's social contexts, namely, Theory of Diffusion of Innovations and Minority Stress Model. CONCLUSIONS: Future SGM-tailored tobacco interventions should leverage both the strengths of individual-level behavior change theories and those of frameworks that understand tobacco use inequities as indivisible from place, context, and policy. IMPLICATIONS: This scoping review describes the theoretical underpinnings of sexual and/or gender minority (SGM)-tailored tobacco interventions published in the peer-review literature in English. It reflects on the need for greater utilization of social and behavior change theoretical frameworks that can engage with unique drivers of SGM tobacco use and barriers to cessation.

A Scoping Review and Meta-analysis of the Use of Remote Biochemical Verification Methods of Smoking Status in Tobacco Research.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing digital delivery of smoking cessation interventions has resulted in the need to employ novel strategies for remote biochemical verification. AIMS AND METHODS: This scoping review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate best practices for remote biochemical verification of smoking status. The scientific literature was searched for studies that reported remotely obtained (not in-person) biochemical confirmation of smoking status (ie, combustible tobacco). A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to investigate key outcomes, which included rates of returned biological samples and the ratio of biochemically verified to self-reported abstinence rates. RESULTS: A total of 82 studies were included. The most common samples were expired air (46%) and saliva (40% of studies), the most common biomarkers were carbon monoxide (48%) and cotinine (44%), and the most common verification methods were video confirmation (37%) and mail-in samples for lab analysis (26%). Mean sample return rates determined by random-effects meta-analysis were 70% for smoking cessation intervention studies without contingency management (CM), 77% for CM studies, and 65% for other studies (eg, feasibility and secondary analyses). Among smoking cessation intervention studies without CM, self-reported abstinence rates were 21%, biochemically verified abstinence rates were 10%, and 47% of individuals who self-reported abstinence were also biochemically confirmed as abstinent. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review suggests that improvements in sample return rates in remote biochemical verification studies of smoking status are needed. Recommendations for reporting standards are provided that may enhance confidence in the validity of reported abstinence rates in remote studies. IMPLICATIONS: This scoping review and meta-analysis included studies using remote biochemical verification to determine smoking status. Challenges exist regarding implementation and ensuring high sample return rates. Higher self-reported compared to biochemically verified abstinence rates suggest the possibility that participants in remote studies may be misreporting abstinence or not returning samples for other reasons (eg, participant burden, inconvenience). Remote biochemical confirmation of self-reported smoking abstinence should be included in smoking cessation studies whenever feasible. However, findings should be considered in the context of challenges to sample return rates. Better reporting guidelines for future studies in this area are needed.

Intersectionality in Intervention Development: Insights From Formative Work on a Tailored Tobacco Cessation Program for LGBTQIA+ Young Adults.

Tailored tobacco cessation interventions focusing on minoritized communities are proliferating, but the extent to which these interventions address the needs of individuals with multiple minoritized social identities is unclear. We developed Empowered, Queer, Quitting, and Living (EQQUAL), an avatar-led digital smoking cessation intervention tailored for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more (LGBTQIA+) young adults based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), via a multistage user-centered design process. The purpose was to evaluate feedback from EQQUAL development activities using an intersectional lens. Intersectionality is a paradigm created by Kimberlé Crenshaw illustrating the multiple social identities each person possesses along with the marginalization of these different social identities. We conducted a rapid deductive content analysis focused on intersectional design gaps using interviewer notes from user testing (n = 7), a diary study (n = 8), and treatment satisfaction responses from a single-arm trial of the EQQUAL intervention (n = 22). Feedback related to intersectional design fell under three broad themes: (a) inadequate representativeness of the avatar, (2) inadequate representativeness within the program broadly, and (3) non-inclusive ACT intervention content. Feedback on inclusiveness included reference to socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, religious/cultural affiliation, and ability/disability. Although we previously found that EQQUAL was highly acceptable and showed promise in terms of efficacy in a single-arm pilot trial, we identified several gaps in intersectional design as the iterative intervention development proceeded. Because intersectional design is a critical part of developing interventions with a health equity focus, applying standardized procedures for intersectional design and analysis could improve intervention design and better address tobacco cessation treatment needs of individuals who may experience multiple forms of marginalization.

Receipt of Tobacco Treatment and One-Year Smoking Cessation Rates Following Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of effective smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening has been identified as a high-priority research gap, but knowledge of current practices to guide process improvement is limited due to the slow uptake of screening and dearth of data to assess cessation-related practices and outcomes under real-world conditions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cessation treatment receipt and 1-year post-screening cessation outcomes within the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA-the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Design Observational study using administrative data from electronic medical records (EMR). Patients Currently smoking Veterans who received a first lung cancer screening test using low-dose CT (LDCT) between January 2014 and June 2018. Main Outcomes Tobacco treatment received within the window of 30 days before and 30 days after LDCT; 1-year quit rates based on EMR Smoking Health Factors data 6-18 months after LDCT. Key Results Of the 47,609 current smokers screened (95.3% male), 8702 (18.3%) received pharmacotherapy and/or behavioral treatment for smoking cessation; 531 (1.1%) received both. Of those receiving pharmacotherapy, only one in four received one of the most effective medications: varenicline (12.1%) or combination nicotine replacement therapy (14.3%). Overall, 5400 Veterans quit smoking-a rate of 11.3% (missing=smoking) or 13.5% (complete case analysis). Treatment receipt and cessation were associated with numerous sociodemographic, clinical, and screening-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: One-year quit rates for Veterans receiving lung cancer screening in VHA are similar to those reported in LDCT clinical trials and cohort studies (i.e., 10-17%). Only 1% of Veterans received the recommended combination of pharmacotherapy and counseling, and the most effective pharmacotherapies were not the most commonly received ones. The value of screening within VHA could be improved by addressing these treatment gaps, as well as the observed disparities in treatment receipt or cessation by race, rurality, and psychiatric conditions.

Assessing Sex, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, Race, Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Mental Health Concerns in Tobacco Use Disorder Treatment Research: Measurement Challenges and Recommendations From a Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Pre-conference Workshop.

This paper reports on topics discussed at a Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco pre-conference workshop at the 2019 annual Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco meeting. The goal of the pre-conference workshop was to help develop a shared understanding of the importance of several tobacco-related priority groups in tobacco use disorder (TUD) treatment research and to highlight challenges in measurement related to these groups. The workshop focused on persons with minoritized sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation identities; persons with minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds; persons with lower socioeconomic status (SES); and persons with mental health concerns. In addition to experiencing commercial tobacco-related health disparities, these groups are also underrepresented in tobacco research, including TUD treatment studies. Importantly, there is wide variation in how and whether researchers are identifying variation within these priority groups. Best practices for measuring and reporting sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, SES, and mental health concerns in TUD treatment research are needed. This paper provides information about measurement challenges when including these groups in TUD treatment research and specific recommendations about how to measure these groups and assess potential disparities in outcomes. The goal of this paper is to encourage TUD treatment researchers to use measurement best practices in these priority groups in an effort to conduct meaningful and equity-promoting research. Increasing the inclusion and visibility of these groups in TUD treatment research will help to move the field forward in decreasing tobacco-related health disparities. Implications: Tobacco-related disparities exist for a number of priority groups including, among others, women, individuals with minoritized sexual and gender identities, individuals with minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds, individuals with lower SES, and individuals with mental health concerns. Research on TUD treatments for many of these subgroups is lacking. Accurate assessment and consideration of these subgroups will provide needed information about efficacious and effective TUD treatments, about potential mediators and moderators, and for accurately describing study samples, all critical elements for reducing tobacco-related disparities, and improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in TUD treatment research.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation in anxiety disorders: Subgroup analysis of the randomized, active- and placebo-controlled EAGLES trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking rates are high in adults with anxiety disorders (ADs), yet little is known about the safety and efficacy of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapies in this group. METHODS: Post hoc analyses in 712 smokers with AD (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], n = 192; generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], n = 243; panic disorder [PD], n = 277) and in a nonpsychiatric cohort (NPC; n = 4,028). Participants were randomly assigned to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT), or placebo plus weekly smoking-cessation counseling for 12 weeks, with 12 weeks follow-up. General linear models were used to test the effects of treatment group, cohort, and their interaction on neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), and continuous abstinence weeks 9-12 (treatment) and 9-24 (follow-up). RESULTS: NPSAE incidence for PTSD (6.9%), GAD (5.4%), and PD (6.2%) was higher versus NPC (2.1%), regardless of treatment. Across all treatments, smokers with PTSD (odds ratio [OR] = 0.58), GAD (OR = 0.72), and PD (OR = 0.53) had lower continuous abstinence rates weeks 9-12 (CAR9-12) versus NPC. Varenicline demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo in smokers with GAD and PD, respectively (OR = 4.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-17.10; and OR = 8.49; 95% CI = 1.57-45.78); NRT was superior to placebo in smokers with PD (OR = 7.42; 95% CI = 1.37-40.35). While there was no statistically significant effect of any treatment on CAR9-12 for smokers with PTSD, varenicline improved 7-day point prevalence abstinence at end of treatment in this subcohort. CONCLUSION: Individuals with ADs were more likely than those without psychiatric illness to experience moderate to severe NPSAEs during smoking-cessation attempts, regardless of treatment. While the study was not powered to evaluate abstinence outcomes with these subgroups of smokers with ADs, varenicline provided significant benefit for cessation in those with GAD and PD, while NRT provided significant benefit for those with PD.

Comparative Effectiveness of Group-Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Preliminary trial data suggest group-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) might be effective for smoking cessation. If so, this could offer a viable alternative to mainstream behavioral therapies, such as those grounded in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). The goal of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of group-delivered ACT versus group-delivered CBT in a rigorous randomized trial design with long-term follow-up. METHODS: Participants (n = 450) were recruited from the Kaiser Permanente Washington health care system and randomized to either ACT-based group counseling or an attention-matched CBT-based group program. All were prescribed an 8-week course of nicotine patches. The primary outcome was self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months post-randomization assessed with missing values imputed as smoking. Sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation and complete cases were examined, as were biochemically confirmed and 6-month outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-day point prevalence abstinence rates at the 12-month follow-up did not differ between study arms in the primary analysis (13.8% ACT vs. 18.1% CBT, adjusted odds ratio = 0.68 [95% CI = 0.35 to 1.27], p = .23) or the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Group-based ACT and CBT had similar long-term quit rates in this methodologically rigorous randomized trial. Group-based ACT is a reasonable alternative to group-based CBT for smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: This study compared the effectiveness of group-based ACT with group-based CBT for smoking cessation using a rigorous, large-scale, attention-matched, randomized trial with 1-year follow-up. One-year cessation rates did not differ between group-based ACT and CBT, suggesting ACT-based intervention is a reasonable alternative to CBT-based counseling for smoking cessation. The results add to the nascent but growing literature assessing ACT and other mindfulness-based treatments for smoking cessation.

Which Method of Assessing Depression and Anxiety Best Predicts Smoking Cessation: Screening Instruments or Self-Reported Conditions?

INTRODUCTION: Affective disorders and symptoms (ADS) are predictive of lower odds of quitting smoking. However, it is unknown which approach to assessing ADS best predicts cessation. This study compared a battery of ADS screening instruments with a single, self-report question on predicting cessation. Among those who self-reported ADS, we also examined if an additional question regarding whether participants believed the condition(s) might interfere with their ability to quit added predictive utility to the single-item question. METHODS: Participants (N = 2637) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of web-based smoking treatments completed a battery of five ADS screening instruments and answered a single-item question about having ADS. Those with a positive self-report on the single-item question were also asked about their interference beliefs. The primary outcome was complete-case, self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months. RESULTS: Both assessment approaches significantly predicted cessation. Screening positive for ≥ one ADS in the battery was associated with 23% lower odds of quitting than not screening positive for any (p = .023); those with a positive self-report on the single-item had 39% lower odds of quitting than self-reporting no mental health conditions (p < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for the two assessment approaches were similar (p = .136). Adding the interference belief question to the single-item assessment significantly increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (p = .042). CONCLUSIONS: The single-item question assessing ADS had as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than the battery of screening instruments for identifying participants at risk for failing to quit smoking. Adding a question about interference beliefs significantly increased the predictive utility of the single-item question. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate that a single-item question assessing ADS has at least as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than a battery of validated screening instruments for identifying smokers at highest risk for cessation failure. This study also demonstrates adding a question about interference beliefs significantly adds to the predictive utility of a single, self-report question about mental health conditions. Findings from this study can be used to inform decisions regarding how to assess ADS in the context of tobacco treatment settings.

Long-Term Smoking Cessation Outcomes for Sexual Minority Versus Nonminority Smokers in a Large Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Web-Based Interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Despite greater smoking prevalence among sexual minority (SM) individuals relative to non-SM individuals, minimal research has examined whether SM smokers have differential success at quitting, and no prior treatment studies have examined differences within SM subgroups. There is also limited knowledge of the psychosocial characteristics of treatment-seeking SM smokers, which could inform targeted treatments. To address these gaps, we compared treatment outcomes and baseline characteristics for SM and non-SM smokers and for bisexual versus lesbian or gay smokers in a large randomized controlled trial of two web-based cessation treatments. METHODS: Trial participants completed a survey to assess baseline characteristics, including self-identification as either SM (n = 253; lesbian or gay, n = 122; bisexual, n = 131) or non-SM (n = 2384). The primary cessation outcome was complete-case, self-reported 30-day abstinence at 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Cessation outcomes did not differ significantly for SM versus non-SM smokers (24% vs. 25%, adjusted OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.28) or across SM subgroups (24% for bisexual vs. 23% for lesbian or gay, adjusted OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.51 to 2.00), and there were no interactions with treatment group assignment. At baseline, SM smokers differed from non-SM smokers on most demographics, were more likely to screen positive for all mental health conditions assessed, and had greater exposure to other smokers in the home. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in baseline characteristics of SM versus non-SM smokers and bisexual versus lesbian or gay smokers did not translate into differential treatment outcomes. Nonetheless, SM smokers' willingness or ability to quit smoking could be enhanced by taking their unique psychosocial profile into account when designing targeted interventions. IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this study, which included the largest sample of SM smokers in a prospective intervention trial to date, support those of a small extant body of literature showing no differences in treatment-assisted cessation outcomes between SM and non-SM smokers. Regardless of their quit rates relative to non-SM smokers, SM smokers' willingness or ability to quit smoking could potentially be enhanced by taking their unique psychosocial profile into account in intervention design, including their younger age, lower socioeconomic status, greater likelihood of being racial or ethnic minorities, and greater prevalence of mental health symptoms.

We are in This Together: Promoting Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Tobacco Research for Sexual and Gender Minority Populations.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals have higher tobacco use prevalence and consequently higher burden of tobacco-caused diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular disease compared with their heterosexual or cisgender counterparts. Yet, there is a critical gap in research focused on measuring SGM tobacco-related health disparities and addressing unmet needs of SGM individuals in the context of nicotine and tobacco research. AIMS AND METHODS: In this commentary, we summarize recommendations discussed during a pre-conference workshop focused on challenges and opportunities in conducting SGM tobacco control research at the 2019 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting. RESULTS: Specifically, we recommend defining and measuring SGM identity in all nicotine and tobacco research routinely, using novel methods to engage a demographically diverse sample of the SGM population, and eliciting SGM community voices in tobacco control research. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing these critical research gaps will enable the scientific community to generate the data to fully understand and support SGM individuals in tobacco use prevention and cessation. IMPLICATIONS: Tobacco use and its consequences have become increasingly concentrated in disadvantaged groups, including sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations. Through concrete recommendations in this commentary, we aimed to promote health equity, diversity, and inclusion in tobacco research for SGM populations by urging the scientific community to consider expanding efforts to monitor and address tobacco-related health disparities of SGM populations within their respective research programs.

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Web-Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Versus Smokefree.gov for Smokers With Bipolar Disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Smokers with bipolar disorder (BD) are less successful at quitting than the general population. In this study, we evaluated in a pilot randomized controlled trial a novel, targeted, web-based intervention for smokers with BD based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and designed for reach and disseminability. AIMS AND METHODS: Daily smokers (n = 51) with bipolar I or II disorder were recruited from four US sites and randomly assigned to one of two web-based smoking cessation interventions-ACT-based WebQuit Plus (n = 25) or Smokefree.gov (n = 26) over a 10-week treatment period. All participants received nicotine patch for 8 weeks. Key outcomes were trial design feasibility, intervention acceptability, and cessation at end of treatment and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: We screened 119 to enroll 51 participants (target sample size = 60) over 24 months. The most common reason for ineligibility was the inability to attend study appointments. Retention was 73% at end of treatment and 80% at follow-up, with no differences by arm. The mean number of logins was twice as high for WebQuit Plus (10.3 vs. 5.3). The usefulness of program skills was rated higher for WebQuit Plus (75% vs. 29%). Biochemically confirmed, 7-day abstinence at end of treatment was 12% in WebQuit Plus versus 8% in Smokefree.gov (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval = 0.21 to 9.97). At follow-up, abstinence rates were 8% in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Trial design produced favorable retention rates, although alternative recruitment methods will be needed for a larger trial. At end of treatment, acceptability and estimated effect size of WebQuit Plus relative to Smokefree.gov were promising and support continued program refinement and evaluation. IMPLICATIONS: In this first randomized controlled trial of a targeted intervention for smokers with BD, we found that the ACT-based WebQuit Plus intervention, delivered in combination with the nicotine patch, had promising acceptability and cessation outcomes relative to Smokefree.gov. The observed signals for acceptability and cessation suggest that the WebQuit Plus program should be refined based on participant feedback and evaluated in a larger trial. Feasibility findings from this study also provide direction for refining trial procedures to enhance the recruitment of smokers with BD.

Comparing Treatment Acceptability and 12-Month Cessation Rates in Response to Web-Based Smoking Interventions Among Smokers Who Do and Do Not Screen Positive for Affective Disorders: Secondary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Web-based cessation programs are now common for intervening with smokers. However, it remains unclear how acceptable or effective these interventions are among people with affective disorders and symptoms (ADS; eg, depression and anxiety). Research examining this is extremely limited, with mixed results on cessation rates. Additional large studies are needed to more fully understand whether Web-based interventions are similarly used and equally effective among people with and without affective disorder symptomology. If not, more targeted Web-based interventions may be required. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to compare Web-based treatment acceptability (defined by satisfaction and use) and 12-month cessation outcomes between smokers with and without ADS. METHODS: Participants (N=2512) were adult smokers enrolled in a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of two Web-based smoking interventions designed for the general population of smokers. At baseline, participants reported demographic and smoking characteristics and completed measures assessing ADS. Participants were then classified into subgroups based on their self-reported ADS-either into a no ADS group or into six nonmutually exclusive subgroups: depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder (PD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), and more than one ADS. Surveys at 12 months postrandomization included subjective ratings of treatment acceptability and self-reported smoking cessation. Treatment use (ie, number of log-ins and total duration of exposure) was assessed via automated records. RESULTS: Relative to the no ADS group, all six ADS subgroups reported significantly greater satisfaction with their assigned Web treatment program, but they spent less time logged in than those with no ADS. For number of log-ins, a treatment arm by ADS group interaction was observed across all ADS subgroups except GAD, suggesting that relative to the no ADS group, they logged in less to one website but not the other. At the 12-month follow-up, abstinence rates in the no ADS group (153/520, 29.42%) were significantly higher than for participants who screened positive for depression (306/1267, 24.15%; P=.03), PTSD (294/1215, 24.19%; P=.03), PD (229/1003, 23.83%; P=.009), and two or more ADS (323/1332, 24.25%; P=.03). Post hoc analyses suggest the lower quit rates may be associated with differences in baseline nicotine dependence and levels of commitment to resist smoking in difficult situations. Website use did not explain the differential abstinence rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reporting higher levels of treatment satisfaction, most smokers with ADS used their assigned intervention less often and had lower quit rates than smokers with no ADS at treatment onset. The results support the need for developing more targeted interventions for smokers with ADS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01812278; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01812278 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/78L9cNdG4).

Addiction Mindsets and Psychological Processes of Quitting Smoking.

BACKGROUND: Lay belief systems about the malleability of human attributes have been shown to impact behavior change in multiple domains. Addiction mindset-i.e., beliefs about the permanence (vs. malleability) of addiction - may affect cigarette smokers' ability to quit, but this has never been examined. OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present research were to develop a measure of addiction mindset (study 1) and examine its associations with various psychological aspects of quitting smoking (study 2). METHODS: In Study 1, using factor analysis of current smokers' and nonsmokers' (n = 600) responses to 22 items designed to measure addiction mindset, we developed a reliable six-item Addiction Mindset Scale (AMS). In Study 2, adult smokers (n = 200) completed the AMS, and measures of a number of psychological processes related to smoking. RESULTS: Higher scores on the AMS, indicative of the belief that addiction is malleable (referred to as a growth mindset), were positively and significantly associated with greater motivation to quit, greater commitment to quitting, greater self-efficacy to abstain, less attribution of failure to lack of ability to change addiction, and fewer self-reported barriers to cessation (all p's < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show a relationship between the beliefs about the permanence of addiction and psychological processes relevant to quitting smoking. The findings underscore the potential of future research exploring how addiction mindsets relate to successful smoking cessation as well as other types of addictive behavior and how they can be applied to change people's behavior.

Challenges to Educating Smokers About Lung Cancer Screening: a Qualitative Study of Decision Making Experiences in Primary Care.

We sought to qualitatively explore how those at highest risk for lung cancer, current smokers, experienced, understood, and made decisions about participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) after being offered in the target setting for implementation, routine primary care visits. Thirty-seven current smokers were identified within 4 weeks of being offered LCS at seven sites participating in the Veterans Health Administration Clinical Demonstration Project and interviewed via telephone using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Transcripts were coded by two raters and analyzed thematically using iterative inductive content analysis. Five challenges to smokers' decision-making lead to overestimated benefits and minimized risks of LCS: fear of lung cancer fixated focus on inflated screening benefits; shame, regret, and low self-esteem stemming from continued smoking situated screening as less averse and more beneficial; screening was mistakenly believed to provide general evaluation of lungs and reassurance was sought about potential damage caused by smoking; decision-making was deferred to providers; and indifference about numerical educational information that was poorly understood. Biased understanding of risks and benefits was complicated by emotion-driven, uninformed decision-making. Emotional and cognitive biases may interfere with educating and supporting smokers' decision-making and may require interventions tailored for their unique needs.

Participant Recruitment and Retention in Remote eHealth Intervention Trials: Methods and Lessons Learned From a Large Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Web-Based Smoking Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Despite having many advantages, online eHealth trials are not without challenges-notably, participant recruitment, and outcome data retention. Moreover, publications from these trials rarely provide detailed information on the methods used for recruitment and retention or discuss implications of the methods for future studies. OBJECTIVE: To address this need for empirical guidance regarding recruitment and outcome data retention planning, we aim to describe the methods and lessons learned from the recruitment and retention procedures used in a large randomized trial of 2 Web-based smoking cessation interventions. METHODS: To ensure a demographically and geographically diverse participant sample, we used the recruitment strategies (1) traditional, (2) Web-based, and (3) online survey panel methods and adaptively modified each in response to recruitment success. At baseline, participants indicated how they heard about the study and answered demographic questions. To maximize trial retention at each of the 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessment points, 4 survey modalities (first Web, followed by phone, mail, and postcard) were sequentially timed over a 30-day period. Participants received US $25 for submitting their responses, regardless of modality, and received an additional US $10 bonus for completing the Web survey within 24h of electronic notification. RESULTS: We randomized 2637 smokers in 16 months and achieved 88% retention at 12-months. Participants (79.26% female, 72.60% Caucasian) were recruited from all 50 states. The majority of participants were recruited through Facebook (49.43%), followed by the survey panel (20.85%), free internet sources (14.54%), traditional media (11.34%), and Google ads (3.84%). Descriptively, participant demographics varied by recruitment source. Of the completed follow-up surveys, most were completed by Web (92%). Retention rates did not vary by recruitment source. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous monitoring and refinement of multiple recruitment methods, particularly of online advertising campaigns, allowed us to maximize the effectiveness of recruitment strategies in recruiting a large, diverse sample of smokers. Likewise, offering multiple follow-up survey modalities in sequential order along with time-dependent bonus incentives enabled us to obtain outcome data from a very high level of enrolled participants for the duration of the trial protocol. These strategies may be similarly useful in other trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01812278; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01812278 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/71gy5GLvO).

Trajectories of 12-Month Usage Patterns for Two Smoking Cessation Websites: Exploring How Users Engage Over Time.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how individuals engage with electronic health (eHealth) interventions over time and whether this engagement predicts health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study, by using the example of a specific type of eHealth intervention (ie, websites for smoking cessation), were to determine (1) distinct groups of log-in trajectories over a 12-month period, (2) their association with smoking cessation, and (3) baseline user characteristics that predict trajectory group membership. METHODS: We conducted a functional clustering analysis of 365 consecutive days of log-in data from both arms of a large (N=2637) randomized trial of 2 website interventions for smoking cessation (WebQuit and Smokefree), with a primary outcome of 30-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 12 months. We conducted analyses for each website separately. RESULTS: A total of 3 distinct trajectory groups emerged for each website. For WebQuit, participants were clustered into 3 groups: 1-week users (682/1240, 55.00% of the sample), 5-week users (399/1240, 32.18%), and 52-week users (159/1240, 12.82%). Compared with the 1-week users, the 5- and 52-week users had 57% higher odds (odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.17; P=.007) and 124% higher odds (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.45-3.43; P<.001), respectively, of being abstinent at 12 months. Smokefree users were clustered into 3 groups: 1-week users (645/1309, 49.27% of the sample), 4-week users (395/1309, 30.18%), and 5-week users (269/1309, 20.55%). Compared with the 1-week users, 5-week users (but not 4-week users; P=.99) had 48% higher odds (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.07; P=.02) of being abstinent at 12 months. In general, the WebQuit intervention had a greater number of weekly log-ins within each of the 3 trajectory groups as compared with those of the Smokefree intervention. Baseline characteristics associated with trajectory group membership varied between websites. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of 1-, 4-, and 5-week usage of websites may be common for how people engage in eHealth interventions. The 5-week usage of either website, and 52-week usage only of WebQuit, predicted a higher odds of quitting smoking. Strategies to increase eHealth intervention engagement for 4 more weeks (ie, from 1 week to 5 weeks) could be highly cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01812278; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01812278 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yPO2OIKR).