Universal Tobacco Screening and Opt-Out Treatment Referral Strategy Among Patients Diagnosed With Cancer by Race and Ethnicity.

This quality improvement study examines whether a universal screening and opt-out referral model could promote racial and ethnic equity in access and use of tobacco treatment among patients with cancer.

Tobacco treatment specialists' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening: Potential piece of the puzzle for increasing lung cancer screening awareness.

OBJECTIVES: Less than 5% of eligible U.S. individuals undergo lung cancer screening (LCS). A significant barrier is lack of awareness; more effective outreach and education strategies are needed to achieve greater population LCS uptake. Tobacco Treatment Specialists (TTSs) are an untapped resource to assist and understanding TTS knowledge and perspectives about LCS and readiness and capacity to assist is a critical first step. METHODS: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design was conducted to understand LCS knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices of TTSs. A cross-sectional survey (N = 147) was conducted supplemented with 3 focus groups (N = 12). RESULTS: TTSs lacked good working knowledge about LCS in general and screening guidelines, but think it is important for their patient population and open to routinely assessing and adding this educational component into their current workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco treatment offers a unique venue for LCS awareness and is a setting where there are experienced specialists trained in tobacco use assessment and treatment. Results highlight the unmet training needs required to facilitate integration of tobacco treatment and LCS. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: TTSs are an expanding healthcare workforce. There is a strong need for current TTSs to receive additional training in the benefits of LCS.

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

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

Communicating Effectively via Tele-oncology (Comskil TeleOnc): a Guide for Best Practices for Communication Skills in Virtual Cancer Care.

The emergence of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, causing coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19) has disrupted the US medical care system. Telemedicine has rapidly emerged as a critical technology enabling health care visits to continue while supporting social distancing to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission among patients, families, and clinicians. This model of patient care is being utilized at major cancer centers around the USA-and tele-oncology (telemedicine in oncology) has rapidly become the primary method of providing cancer care. However, most clinicians have little experience and inadequate training in this new form of care delivery. Because many practicing oncology clinicians are not familiar with telemedicine technology and the best practices for virtual communication, we strongly believe that training in this field is essential. Utilizing best practices of communication skills training, this paper presents a brief tele-oncology communication guide (Comskil TeleOnc) to address the timely need to maximize high-quality care to patients with cancer. The goal of the Comskil TeleOnc Guide is to recognize, elicit, and effectively respond to patients' medical needs and concerns while utilizing empathic responses to communicate understanding, alleviate distress, and provide support via videoconferencing. We recommend five strategies to achieve the communication goal outlined above: (1) Establish the clinician-patient relationship/create rapport, (2) set the agenda, (3) respond empathically to emotions, (4) deliver the information, and (5) effectively end the tele-oncology visit. The guide proposed in this paper is not all-encompassing and may not be applicable to all health care institutions; however, it provides a practical, patient-centered framework to conduct a tele-oncology visit.

Reporting Treatment Fidelity in Behavioral Tobacco Treatment Clinical Trials: Scoping Review and Measurement Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Adoption of rigorous standards for reporting treatment fidelity is essential for advancing discovery, validation, and implementation of behavioral treatments. Whereas the NIH Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) developed an assessment tool to assess the quality of reporting and monitoring of treatment fidelity across health behavior change interventions, it has not yet been applied specifically to treatment fidelity in behavioral tobacco treatment trials. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed, clinical trials of behavioral adult tobacco treatment interventions published in English between 2006 and 2018. Using the BCC treatment fidelity checklist, articles were coded for the presence or absence of various treatment fidelity strategies within each of 5 domains: Design, Training, Delivery, Receipt, and Enactment. Eligible articles (N = 755) were coded by two independent coders. RESULTS: The proportion of reporting strategies varied within the fidelity domains, ranging from 5.2% to 96.3% in Design, 1.9% to 24.9% in Training, 2.6% to 32.3% in Delivery, 5.2% to 44.3% in Receipt, and 6.7% to 43.2% in Enactment. The mean proportion of adherence to treatment fidelity strategies within each domain was: Design (68%), Training (14%), Delivery (15%), Receipt (16%), and Enactment (25%). Only 11 studies achieved ≥80% reporting across >1 fidelity domain. There was no evidence for improvement in fidelity reporting across the 13-year time frame from the initial BCC publication to the present. CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate the lack of consistency in fidelity reporting in tobacco treatment trials and underscore the challenges faced in evaluating rigor and reproducibility, as well as interpretation and dissemination of findings. Recommendations are made for improving fidelity reporting in tobacco treatment trials. IMPLICATIONS: The SRNT Treatment Research Network sponsored a scoping review to summarize the current state of reporting treatment fidelity and make recommendations for best practices in reporting fidelity in tobacco treatment trials. The review identified a lack of consistency in fidelity reporting, illustrating the challenges faced in evaluating rigor, and reproducibility, as well as interpretation and dissemination of findings.

The Emerging Global Tobacco Treatment Workforce: Characteristics of Tobacco Treatment Specialists Trained in Council-Accredited Training Programs from 2017 to 2019.

Tobacco use is projected to kill 1 billion people in the 21st century. Tobacco Use Disorder (TUD) is one of the most common substance use disorders in the world. Evidence-based treatment of TUD is effective, but treatment accessibility remains very low. A dearth of specially trained clinicians is a significant barrier to treatment accessibility, even within systems of care that implement brief intervention models. The treatment of TUD is becoming more complex and tailoring treatment to address new and traditional tobacco products is needed. The Council for Tobacco Treatment Training Programs (Council) is the accrediting body for Tobacco Treatment Specialist (TTS) training programs. Between 2016 and 2019, n = 7761 trainees completed Council-accredited TTS training programs. Trainees were primarily from North America (92.6%) and the Eastern Mediterranean (6.1%) and were trained via in-person group workshops in medical and academic settings. From 2016 to 2019, the number of Council-accredited training programs increased from 14 to 22 and annual number of trainees increased by 28.5%. Trainees have diverse professional backgrounds and work in diverse settings but were primarily White (69.1%) and female (78.7%) located in North America. Nearly two-thirds intended to implement tobacco treatment services in their setting; two-thirds had been providing tobacco treatment for 1 year or less; and 20% were sent to training by their employers. These findings suggest that the training programs are contributing to the development of a new workforce of TTSs as well as the development of new programmatic tobacco treatment services in diverse settings. Developing strategies to support attendance from demographically and geographically diverse professionals might increase the proportion of trainees from marginalized groups and regions of the world with significant tobacco-related inequities.

Training oncology care providers in the assessment and treatment of tobacco use and dependence.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for promoting smoking cessation in cancer care exist; however, most oncology settings have not established tobacco use assessment and treatment as standard care. Inadequate staff training and other implementation challenges have been identified as barriers for delivery of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Providing training in tobacco treatment tailored to the unique needs of tobacco-dependent patients with cancer is one strategy to improve adoption of best practices to promote smoking cessation in cancer care. METHODS: A tobacco treatment training program for oncology care providers (tobacco treatment training-oncology [TTT-O]) consisting of a 2-day didactic and experiential workshop followed by 6 monthly, collaboratory videoconference calls supporting participants in their efforts to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in their oncology settings was developed and implemented. This article presents preliminary results on program evaluation, changes in participants' self-efficacy, and progress in implementing tobacco treatment. RESULTS: Data have been obtained from the first 5 cohorts of TTT-O participants (n = 110) who completed training, course evaluations, baseline and follow-up surveys. Participants rated the training as highly favorable and reported significant gains in self-efficacy in their ability to assess and treat tobacco dependence. Participants also demonstrated significant improvements in tobacco treatment skills and implementation of several indicators of improved adoption of best practices for tobacco treatment in their cancer care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of tobacco treatment training for cancer care providers is feasible, acceptable, and can have a significant positive impact on participants' tobacco treatment skills, self-efficacy, and greater adoption of tobacco treatment delivery in cancer care.

Rapid Scaling Up of Telehealth Treatment for Tobacco-Dependent Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Outbreak in New York City.

Background: The (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in sudden disruption of routine clinical care necessitating rapid transformation to maintain clinical care while safely reducing virus contagion. Introduction: Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) experienced a rapid evolution from delivery of in-person cessation counseling services to virtual telehealth treatments for our tobacco-dependent cancer patients. Aim: To examine the effect of rapid scaling of tobacco treatment telehealth on patient engagement, as measured by attendance rates for in-person counseling visits versus remote telehealth counseling visits. We also describe the patient, clinician, and health care system challenges encountered in rapid expansion of individual and group tobacco telehealth services. Methods: Data collected from the electronic medical record during the first 4 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were examined for tobacco treatment counseling. Results: From January 1, 2020 to March 30, 2020, markedly improved patient engagement was observed in ambulatory tobacco treatment services with greater attendance at scheduled telehealth visits than in-person visits, 75% versus 60.3%, odds ratio 1.84 (confidence interval: 1.26-2.71; p < 0.001). In addition, bedside hospital counseling visits were transformed into inpatient telephone visits with high levels of sustained patient engagement. Lastly, group telehealth services were launched rapidly to increase capacity and provide greater psychosocial support for cancer patients struggling with tobacco dependence. Discussion: Clinical, Information Technology (IT), and hospital system barriers were successfully addressed for most cancer patients seeking individual telehealth treatment. Group telehealth services were found to be feasible and acceptable. Conclusions: MSK's rapid leap into virtual care delivery mitigated disruption of tobacco treatment services and demonstrated strong feasibility and acceptance for managing complex tobacco-dependent patients.

A Narrative Review of Intensive Group Tobacco Treatment: Clinical, Research, and US Policy Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines recommend comprehensive treatment for tobacco dependence including pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions. Group counseling may deliver unique treatment aspects not available with other modalities. This manuscript provides a narrative review of group treatment outcomes from real-world practice settings and complements recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our primary goals were to determine whether group treatments delivered in these settings have yielded similar quit rates compared to individual treatment and to provide recommendations for best practices and policy. METHODS: Group treatment was defined as occurring in a clinical or workplace setting (ie, not provided as part of a research study), led by a professionally trained clinician, and offered weekly over several weeks. English language PubMed articles from January 2000 to July 2017 were searched to identify studies that included outcomes from both group and individual treatment offered in real-world settings. Additional data sources meeting our criteria were also included. Reports not using pharmacotherapy and research studies (eg, RCTs) were excluded. The primary outcome was short-term, carbon monoxide (CO)-validated point prevalence abstinence (4-week postquit date). RESULTS: The review included data from 11 observational studies. In all cases, group treatment(s) had higher 4-week CO-validated quit rates (range: 35.5%-67.3%) than individual treatment(s) (range: 18.6%-53.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Best practice group treatments for tobacco dependence are generalizable from research to clinical settings and likely to be at least as effective as intensive individual treatment. The added advantages of efficiency and cost-effectiveness can be significant. Group treatment is feasible in various settings with good results. IMPLICATIONS: A major barrier to achieving high rates of tobacco abstinence is under-utilization of evidence-based treatment interventions. This review demonstrates the effectiveness and utility of group treatment for tobacco dependence. Based on the available data described in this narrative review in conjunction with existing RCT data, group treatment for tobacco dependence should be established and available in all behavioral health and medical settings. Group tobacco treatment is now one of the mandated reimbursable tobacco treatment formats within the US health care system, creating enormous opportunities for widespread clinical reach. Finally, comprehensive worksite group programs can further extend impact.

Billing Practices Among US Tobacco Use Treatment Providers.

OBJECTIVES: The US Affordable Care Act (ACA) now requires almost all health insurance plans to cover tobacco use treatment (TUT), but TUT remains underutilized. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey of US TUT providers in 2016 regarding their billing practices. RESULTS: Participants (n = 131) provided services primarily in medical and behavioral health settings and were from a variety of professions. Most provided intensive individual (>15 minutes per session) and/or group counseling. Although most reported that their organization accepted at least 1 form of insurance, only 34% reported that TUT services were billed, with about equal proportions endorsing billing under their own independent tax ID and "incident to" billing under a supervisor. Half of billers (52%) reported using at least 1 Current Procedural Terminology code. The most common codes were 99406 and 99407, but 18 unique codes were specified. Themes of qualitative responses (n = 101) included concern about how to initiate and sustain adequate reimbursement, and experiences with billing not being "worth" the time or effort. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results demonstrate a need for providers, administrators, and billing managers to work collaboratively. Even with the ACA mandate, and consistent with prior reports, reimbursement rates may be inadequate for intensive counseling. Areas for advocacy include recognizing that TUT requires similar intensity, expertise, and reimbursement as other substance use disorders and chronic medical conditions; giving Tobacco Treatment Specialists the ability to bill independently; and improving coordination between intensive therapies validated in research and "real-world" logistics.

Use of Expired Air Carbon Monoxide Testing in Clinical Tobacco Treatment Settings.

Carbon monoxide (CO) testing is considered an easy, noninvasive, and objective contribution to the assessment of smoking behavior, as CO is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream when lit cigarettes or cigars are inhaled. CO testing is a medically important billable outpatient service that can contribute to sustainability of face to face tobacco use treatment services by clinicians. This article reviews research on the clinical use of CO testing to provide biomedical feedback in assessing smoking behavior, educating smokers on tobacco health effects, assisting with treatment planning, and as a motivational tool to encourage people to become tobacco free. Further research can focus on how to best incorporate CO testing into clinical practice, including more research on outcomes and methods to ensure that insurers reimburse for testing and improved ways to use CO testing to initiate attempts to quit tobacco use, to maintain cessation, and to prevent relapse.

Pairing smoking-cessation services with lung cancer screening: A clinical guideline from the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.

Smoking cessation is crucial for reducing cancer risk and premature mortality. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently approved lung screening as a benefit for patients ages 55 to 77 years who have a 30 pack-year history. The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) and the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence (ATTUD) developed the guideline described in this commentary based on an illustrative literature review to present the evidence for smoking-cessation health benefits in this high-risk group and to provide clinical recommendations for integrating evidence-based smoking-cessation treatment with lung cancer screening. Unfortunately, extant data on lung cancer screening participants were scarce at the time this guideline was written. However, in this review, the authors summarize the sufficient evidence on the benefits of smoking cessation and the efficacy of smoking-cessation interventions for smokers ages 55 to 77 years to provide smoking-cessation interventions for smokers who seek lung cancer screening. It is concluded that smokers who present for lung cancer screening should be encouraged to quit smoking at each visit. Access to evidence-based smoking-cessation interventions should be provided to all smokers regardless of scan results, and motivation to quit should not be a necessary precondition for treatment. Follow-up contacts to support smoking-cessation efforts should be arranged for smokers. Evidence-based behavioral strategies should be used at each visit to motivate smokers who are unwilling to try quitting/reducing smoking or to try evidence-based treatments that may lead to eventual cessation.