An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators.

OBJECTIVES: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation's (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. METHODS: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. RESULTS: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

Revised European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework on palliative sedation: An international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. AIM: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. DESIGN: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. SETTING: European. PARTICIPANTS: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. RESULTS: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Insights generated through the European Access Academy's multi-stakeholder pre-convention questionnaire.

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be of utmost importance for the success of the developing EU HTA harmonization process. A multi-step procedure was applied to develop a survey across stakeholders/collaborators within the EU HTA framework to assess their current level of involvement, determine their suggested future role, identify challenges to contribution, and highlight efficient ways to fulfilling their role. The 'key' stakeholder groups identified and covered by this research included: patients', clinicians', regulatory, and Health Technology Developer representatives. The survey was circulated to a wide expert audience including all relevant stakeholder groups in order to determine self-perception by the 'key' stakeholders regarding involvement in the HTA process (self-rating), and in a second, slightly modified version of the questionnaire, to determine the perception of 'key' stakeholder involvement by HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers (external rating). Predefined analyses were conducted on the submitted responses. Fifty-four responses were received (patients 9; clinicians: 8; regulators: 4; HTDs 14; HTA bodies: 7; Payers: 5; policymakers 3; others 4). The mean self-perceived involvement score was consistently lower for each of the 'key' stakeholder groups than the respective external ratings. Based on the qualitative insights generated in the survey, a RACI Chart (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) was developed for each of the stakeholder groups to determine their roles and involvement in the current EU HTA process. Our findings suggest extensive effort and a distinct research agenda are required to ensure adequate involvement of the key stakeholder groups in the evolving EU HTA process.

A proposal for an international Code of Conduct for data sharing in genomics.

As genomic research becomes commonplace across the world, there is an increased need to coordinate practices among researchers, especially with regard to data sharing. One such way is an international code of conduct. In September 2020, an expert panel consisting of representatives from various fields convened to discuss a draft proposal formed via a synthesis of existing professional codes and other recommendations. This article presents an overview and analysis of the main issues related to international genomic research that were discussed by the expert panel, and the results of the discussion and follow up responses by the experts. As a result, the article presents as an annex a proposal for an international code of conduct for data sharing in genomics that is meant to establish best practices.

Shaping a research agenda to ensure a successful European health technology assessment: insights generated during the inaugural convention of the European access academy.

OBJECTIVES: Key challenges for a joint European Health Technology Assessment (HTA) include consolidated approaches towards the choice of adequate comparator(s), selection of endpoints that are relevant to patients with a given disease, dealing with remaining uncertainties as well as transparent and consistent management of related processes. We aimed to further crystallize related core domains within these four areas that warrant further research and scrutiny. METHODS: Building on the outcomes of a previously conducted questionnaire survey, four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection, were identified. At the inaugural convention of the European Access Academy dedicated working groups were established defining and prioritizing core domains for each of the four areas. The working groups consisted of ~ 10 participants each, representing all relevant stakeholder groups (patients/ clinicians/ regulators/ HTA & payers/ academia/ industry). Story books identifying the work assignments were shared in advance. Two leads and one note taker per working group facilitated the process. All rankings were conducted on an ordinal Likert Response Scale scoring from 1 (low priority) to 7 (high priority). RESULTS: Identified key domains include for processes: i) address (resource-) challenge of multiple PICOs (Patient/ Intervention/ Comparator/ Outcomes), ii) time and capacity challenges, iii) integrating all involved stakeholders, iv) conflicts and aligning between different multi-national stakeholders, v) interaction with health technology developer; for uncertainty: i) early and inclusive collaboration, ii) agreement on feasibility of RCT and acceptance of uncertainty, iii) alignment on closing evidence gaps, iv) capacity gaps; for comparator choice: i) criteria for the choice of comparator in an increasingly fragmented treatment landscape, ii) reasonable number of comparators in PICOs, iii) shape Early Advice so that comparator fulfils both regulatory and HTA needs, iv) acceptability of Indirect Treatment Comparisons (ITC), v) ensure broad stakeholder involvement in comparator selection; for endpoint selection: i) approaching new endpoints; ii) patient preferences on endpoints; iii) position of HTA and other stakeholders; iv) long-term generation and secondary use of data; v) endpoint challenges in RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a joint European HTA assessment is a unique opportunity for a stronger European Health Union. We identified 19 domains related to the four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection that urgently need to be addressed for this regulation to become a success.

Progression-free survival and quality of life in metastatic breast cancer: The patient perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment advances for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) have improved overall survival (OS) in some mBC subtypes; however, there remains no cure for mBC. Considering the use of progression-free survival (PFS) and other surrogate endpoints in clinical trials, we must understand patient perspectives on measures used to assess treatment efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To explore global patient perceptions of the concept of PFS and its potential relation to quality of life (QoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual roundtables in Europe and the United States and interviews in Japan with breast cancer patients, patient advocates, and thought leaders. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Lengthened OS combined with no worsening or improvement in QoL remain the most important endpoints for mBC patients. Time when the disease is not progressing is meaningful to patients when coupled with improvements in QoL and no added treatment toxicity. Clinical terminology such as "PFS" is not well understood, and participants underscored the need for patient-friendly terminology to better illustrate the concept. Facets of care that patients with mBC value and that may be related to PFS include relief from cancer-related symptoms and treatment-related toxicities as well as the ability to pursue personal goals. Improved communication between patients and providers on managing treatment-related toxicities and addressing psychosocial challenges to maintain desired QoL is needed. CONCLUSION: While OS and QoL are considered the most relevant endpoints, patients also value periods of time without disease progression. Incorporation of these considerations into the design and conduct of future clinical trials in mBC, as well as HTA and reimbursement decision-making, is needed to better capture the potential value of a therapeutic innovation.

The LEGACy study: a European and Latin American consortium to identify risk factors and molecular phenotypes in gastric cancer to improve prevention strategies and personalized clinical decision making globally.

BACKGROUND: Gastric Cancer (GC) is the fourth most deadly cancer worldwide. Enhanced understanding of its key epidemiological and molecular drivers is urgently needed to lower the incidence and improve outcomes. Furthermore, tumor biology in European (EU) and Latin American (LATAM) countries is understudied. The LEGACy study is a Horizon 2020 funded multi-institutional research approach to 1) detail the epidemiological features including risk factors of GC in current time and 2) develop cost-effective methods to identify and integrate biological biomarkers needed to guide diagnostic and therapeutic approaches with the aim of filling the knowledge gap on GC in these areas. METHODS: This observational study has three parts that are conducted in parallel during 2019-2023 across recruiting centers from four EU and four LATAM countries: Part 1) A case-control study (800 cases and 800 controls) using questionnaires on candidate risk factors for GC, which will be correlated with clinical, demographic and epidemiological parameters. Part 2) A case-control tissue sampling study (400 cases and 400 controls) using proteome, genome, microbiome and immune analyses to characterize advanced (stage III and IV) GC. Patients in this part of the study will be followed over time to observe clinical outcomes. The first half of samples will be used as training cohort to identify the most relevant risk factors and biomarkers, which will be selected to propose cost-effective diagnostic and predictive methods that will be validated with the second half of samples. Part 3) An educational study, as part of our prevention strategy (subjects recruited from the general public) to test and disseminate knowledge on GC risk factors and symptoms by a questionnaire and informative video. Patients could be recruited for more than one of the three LEGACy studies. DISCUSSION: The LEGACy study aims to generate novel, in-depth knowledge on the tumor biological characteristics through integrating epidemiological, multi-omics and clinical data from GC patients at an EU-LATAM partnership. During the study, cost-effective panels with potential use in clinical decision making will be developed and validated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: Part 1: NCT03957031 . Part 2: NCT04015466 . Part 3: NCT04019808 .

Co-creating with patients an impact framework across the medicine's life cycle: a qualitative study exploring patients' experiences of involvement in and perceptions of impact measures.

BACKGROUND: The biopharmaceutical industry is challenged with efficiently delivering medicines that patients truly value. This can be addressed by engaging patients and caregivers throughout a medicine's life cycle, ensuring that products meet the needs and expectations of those who take them. While isolated best practice examples of patient engagement exist, they remain relatively ad hoc and not fully embedded within Research & Development (R&D) practices. To encourage more patient engagement, the 'impact' of patient engagement projects (PEP) must be objectively measured and demonstrated. Some frameworks have been proposed; however, there is no evidence of widespread adoption, nor have patients' perspectives been robustly explored. The objective of this qualitative study was therefore to understand patients' perspectives of impact measurement that can be systematically applied within a biopharmaceutical company. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 patient organisation (PO) representatives exploring their experiences of engagement and reflections on 23 candidate patient engagement impact measures categorised into five groups: Medicines R&D Priorities; Clinical Trial Design; Regulatory & Market Access Submissions; Product Support & Information; and Disease Support & Information. Thematic analysis was undertaken and impact measures revised in line with interview participant feedback. Emerging themes and revisions to impact measures were validated at a joint workshop with 4 patient advisors representing 4 POs. RESULTS: The study revealed that PO representatives feel a deep sense of accomplishment and ownership when collaborating on PEPs with biopharmaceutical companies. They largely conceptualise 'impact' as positive, tangible and useful outcomes. The revisions made to the pre-defined patient engagement impact measures fell into three broad categories: (1) a requirement for greater context; (2) capturing the nature of patient influence; and (3) terminology changes. The greatest number of revisions concerned 'requiring greater context', for example, including additional descriptions, patient quotes, and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on how patient advocates view 'impact'. Typically this means delivering 'value' important for them. Therefore, the authors of this paper created the term 'value-impact' to comprehensively characterise this conceptualisation, and propose a value-impact measurement plan, incorporating longitudinal data. Through this understanding and in light of other recently published work, wide-scale adoption and implementation of the measurement of value-impact across the biopharmaceutical industry can be realised.

Developing medicines involves multiple stages, all essential for pharmaceutical companies. However, this approach is becoming increasingly costly and patients are rarely involved in defining treatment outcomes. Patient insight is important for everyone involved in medicinal development and required by authorities reviewing new treatments. To identify best practices, the difference ('impact') made by engaging with patients must be measured continuously throughout the treatment development process. Possible impact measures have been proposed (for example, the PARADIGM initiative), but problems remain.This study aimed to work with patients and adapt standard measuring approaches that can be used to provide ongoing insight into the impact of patient engagement activities for companies and patients. Researchers interviewed 13 patient organisation (PO) representatives to explore their experiences of impact measures. Thematic analysis was conducted, and data used to adapt 23 potential impact measures in collaboration with patients.This study identified that PO representatives view impact as being positive, tangible, and useful outcomes, achieving a deep sense of accomplishment and ownership for those patients and representatives involved. The authors created the term 'value-impact' to describe how patients perceive such achievements. Furthermore, measures should be adapted to: 1) include greater context such as descriptions, patients quotes and satisfaction; 2) capture patient influence; and 3) use language that is understandable for all parties. Examples and suggestions for engagement at different stages and revised impact measures are presented in this report. It is our hope that this study will encourage more frequent and effective use of patient engagement strategies as medicines are developed.

Real time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy for cancer: European multicentre randomised controlled trial (eSMART).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of remote monitoring of adjuvant chemotherapy related side effects via the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) on symptom burden, quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-efficacy, and work limitations. DESIGN: Multicentre, repeated measures, parallel group, evaluator masked, stratified randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twelve cancer centres in Austria, Greece, Norway, Republic of Ireland, and UK. PARTICIPANTS: 829 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's disease, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving first line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in five years. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to ASyMS (intervention; n=415) or standard care (control; n=414) over six cycles of chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was symptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale; MSAS). Secondary outcomes were health related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G), Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Revised (STAI-R), Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-Cancer), and work limitations questionnaire (WLQ). RESULTS: For the intervention group, symptom burden remained at pre-chemotherapy treatment levels, whereas controls reported an increase from cycle 1 onwards (least squares absolute mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.19 to -0.12; P<0.001; Cohen's D effect size=0.5). Analysis of MSAS sub-domains indicated significant reductions in favour of ASyMS for global distress index (-0.21, -0.27 to -0.16; P<0.001), psychological symptoms (-0.16, -0.23 to -0.10; P<0.001), and physical symptoms (-0.21, -0.26 to -0.17; P<0.001). FACT-G scores were higher in the intervention group across all cycles (mean difference 4.06, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 5.46; P<0.001), whereas mean scores for STAI-R trait (-1.15, -1.90 to -0.41; P=0.003) and STAI-R state anxiety (-1.13, -2.06 to -0.20; P=0.02) were lower. CASE-Cancer scores were higher in the intervention group (mean difference 0.81, 0.19 to 1.43; P=0.01), and most SCNS-SF34 domains were lower, including sexuality needs (-1.56, -3.11 to -0.01; P<0.05), patient care and support needs (-1.74, -3.31 to -0.16; P=0.03), and physical and daily living needs (-2.8, -5.0 to -0.6; P=0.01). Other SCNS-SF34 domains and WLQ were not significantly different. Safety of ASyMS was satisfactory. Neutropenic events were higher in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reduction in symptom burden supports the use of ASyMS for remote symptom monitoring in cancer care. A "medium" Cohen's effect size of 0.5 showed a sizable, positive clinical effect of ASyMS on patients' symptom experiences. Remote monitoring systems will be vital for future services, particularly with blended models of care delivery arising from the covid-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02356081.

Bratislava Statement: consensus recommendations for improving pancreatic cancer care.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal tumours, and it is the fourth cause of cancer death in Europe. Despite its important public health impact, no effective treatments exist, nor are there high-visibility research efforts to improve care. This alarming situation is emblematic of a larger group of cancer diseases, known as neglected cancers. To address the impact of these diseases, the European Commission-supported Innovative Partnership for Action Against Cancer launched a multi-stakeholder initiative to determine key steps that healthcare systems can rapidly implement to improve their response. A working group comprising 20 representatives from European medical societies, patient associations, cancer plan organisations and other relevant European healthcare stakeholders was organised. A consensus process based on the results of different studies, discussion of research outcomes, and development and endorsement of draft statements resulted in 22 consensus recommendations (the Bratislava Statement). The statement argues that substantial improvements can be achieved in patient outcomes by centralising pancreatic cancer care around state-of-the-art reference centres, staffed by expert multidisciplinary teams capable of providing high-quality care. This organisational model requires a specific care framework encompassing primary, palliative and survivorship care, and a policy environment prioritising the use of quality criteria and performance assessments as well as research investments dedicated to prevention, risk prediction, early detection and diagnosis. In order to address the challenges posed by neglected cancers in general and pancreatic cancer in particular, a specific control strategy tailored to this reality is required.

The cancer patient and cardiology.

Advances in cancer treatments have improved clinical outcomes, leading to an increasing population of cancer survivors. However, this success is associated with high rates of short- and long-term cardiovascular (CV) toxicities. The number and variety of cancer drugs and CV toxicity types make long-term care a complex undertaking. This requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes expertise in oncology, cardiology and other related specialties, and has led to the development of the cardio-oncology subspecialty. This paper aims to provide an overview of the main adverse events, risk assessment and risk mitigation strategies, early diagnosis, medical and complementary strategies for prevention and management, and long-term follow-up strategies for patients at risk of cancer therapy-related cardiotoxicities. Research to better define strategies for early identification, follow-up and management is highly necessary. Although the academic cardio-oncology community may be the best vehicle to foster awareness and research in this field, additional stakeholders (industry, government agencies and patient organizations) must be involved to facilitate cross-discipline interactions and help in the design and funding of cardio-oncology trials. The overarching goals of cardio-oncology are to assist clinicians in providing optimal care for patients with cancer and cancer survivors, to provide insight into future areas of research and to search for collaborations with industry, funding bodies and patient advocates. However, many unmet needs remain. This document is the product of brainstorming presentations and active discussions held at the Cardiovascular Round Table workshop organized in January 2020 by the European Society of Cardiology.

Transforming Breast Cancer Together: European elections manifesto 2019 seizing the opportunities for breast cancer patients.

With the European Parliament elections having taken place in May 2019 and a new European Commission (EC) taking office in November 2019, this year is critical for European policymakers, as goals and priorities of the European Union (EU) for the next five years will be discussed and agreed upon. This Manifesto issued by the Transforming Breast Cancer Together initiative calls upon policymakers to improve services for patients in an area still of high unmet need and reduce the societal impact of breast cancer by elevating it as a health policy priority to improve breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and care across Europe.

Having the conversation about work with people with multiple sclerosis: a guide for healthcare professionals.

The ability to work is important for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, only 37% of those with mild MS are in work. Across Europe, lost work productivity accounts for a third of the €15 billion total annual cost of MS. Supporting people with MS into employment should be a clinical care priority in order to maximize work productivity, inclusiveness and therapeutic benefit. A guide for healthcare professionals on having conversations about work with people with MS has been developed through the 'Ready for Work' project. Work should be considered as a clinical outcome. The focus should be on what patients can do, rather than what they cannot do, at work. Effective communication is fundamental in supporting patients' return to work.

Implementation of smoke free workplaces: challenges in Latin America.

Latin America is at the forefront of global progress in smoke free workplaces. Comprehensive smoke free laws have been implemented in four countries, and in many cities, states and provinces. More than 130 million people in Latin America are now protected from secondhand tobacco smoke. Nevertheless, a survey of tobacco control advocates and governments in Latin America found several challenges to progress in smoke free workplaces: the need for voluntary workplace programs where there is no smoke free legislation; weak legislation or lack of comprehensive national smoke free laws; tobacco industry attempts to undermine progress with smoke free laws or overturn existing laws via litigation; lack of compliance with laws; the need for monitoring and evaluation of smoke free laws; the need to make better use of mass media campaigns; and strengthening civil society. However, much progress has already been achieved to address these challenges, in particular through collaborations and the exchange of experience and expertise across Latin America.

Implementation of smokefree workplaces: challenges in Latin America / Implementación de lugares de trabajo libres de humo de tabaco: desafíos en América Latina

Latin America is at the forefront of global progress in smokefree workplaces. Comprehensive smokefree laws have been implemented in four countries, and in many cities, states and provinces. More than 130 million people in Latin America are now protected from secondhand tobacco smoke. Nevertheless, a survey of tobacco control advocates and governments in Latin America found several challenges to progress in smokefree workplaces: the need for voluntary workplace programs where there is no smokefree legislation; weak legislation or lack of comprehensive national smokefree laws; tobacco industry attempts to undermine progress with smokefree laws or overturn existing laws via litigation; lack of compliance with laws; the need for monitoring and evaluation of smokefree laws; the need to make better use of mass media campaigns; and strengthening civil society. However, much progress has already been achieved to address these challenges, in particular through collaborations and the exchange of experience and expertise across Latin America.

América Latina está a la vanguardia del movimiento en favor de lugares de trabajo libres de humo de tabaco. Se han implementado leyes integrales de ambientes libres de humo en cuatro países, y en muchas ciudades, estados y provincias. Gracias a la implementación de estas políticas, más de 130 millones de personas en América Latina están ahora protegidas del humo de tabaco ajeno. Sin embargo, existen varios desafíos para un continuo progreso en la implementación de lugares de trabajo libres de humo de tabaco. A partir de una encuesta realizada con activistas y funcionarios gubernamentales de América Latina, se indentificaron los siguientes desafíos principales: necesidad de adoptar programas voluntarios en los lugares del trabajo cuando no exista legislación; legislación débil o falta de leyes nacionales integrales de ambientes libres de humo de tabaco; intentos de la industria tabacalera por dificultar el progreso de las leyes de ambientes libres de humo o anular leyes existentes a través del litigio; falta de cumplimiento de las leyes; necesidad de monitoreo y evaluación de las leyes de ambientes libres de humo; necesidad de utilizar más eficientemente las campañas de medios masivos de comunicación; y fortalecimiento de la sociedad civil. No obstante, se ha alcanzado ya un gran progreso para enfrentar estos desafíos, particularmente a través de colaboraciones y el intercambio de experiencias entre los países latinoamericanos.

Italian general practitioners and smoking cessation strategies.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are in a key position to intervene with patients who smoke. The cornerstone of a smoking cessation strategy should be the routine provision of brief advice and follow-up in primary care. However, it seems GPs do not often take action against smoking, at least in Italy as shown by previous reports. The survey was planned, in the context of the "GPs Empowerment Project", a collaborative project involving Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Portugal, under the ENSP contract with the European Commission (Health & Consumer protection Directorate-General), to evaluate the general attitude, knowledge and behavior of GPs regarding smoking cessation methods. METHODS: A total of 729 family doctors, 409 in Northern and 320 in Southern Italy, were interviewed by phone in the period July-October 2000 regarding their personal smoking habits and their approach with patients on the topic. Prevalence rates were computed using the Epi INFO 6.0 software and were presented as the unadjusted percentage prevalence. RESULTS: The percentage of current smokers among GPs included in the survey was 28.3%, with a higher prevalence in the south (33.3%). Most of the GPs believe that it is their duty to give information about smoking cessation (96.8%) and consider giving information about smoking cessation to their patients an important intervention (98.5%), but only about 49% think their patients will accept their advice. Most GPs (87.3%) declared having discussed about tobacco use with their patients during the month preceding the interview, and 83.5% would like to be trained on smoking cessation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that, in order to implement primary prevention in clinical practice in Italy, it appears essential to reduce the number of GPs who smoke and to improve GP training on smoking cessation procedures.