Feasibility, acceptability, and initial efficacy of empathic communication skills training to reduce lung cancer stigma in Nigeria: a pilot study.

Effective communication about cancer diagnosis and prognosis in sub-Saharan African oncology settings is often challenged by the cancer-related shame and stigma patients and families experience. Enhancing empathic communication between health care providers, including physicians and nurses, and oncology patients and their families can not only reduce cancer stigma but also improve patient engagement, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life. To reduce lung cancer stigma, we adapted an evidence-based empathic communication skills training intervention to reduce patients' experience of stigma in Nigeria and conducted a pilot study examining the feasibility and acceptability of the empathic communication skills training. Thirty health care providers, recruited from University College Hospital, Ibadan, and Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, participated in a 2.25-hour didactic and experiential training session. Participant surveys were completed before and after the training. Overall, participants reported highly favorable training evaluations, with at least 85% of health care providers agreeing or strongly agreeing to survey items assessing training relevance, novelty, clarity, and facilitator effectiveness. Self-efficacy to communicate empathically with patients increased significantly from before-training (Mean [SD] = 3.93 [0.28]) to after-training (Mean [SD] = 4.55 [0.15]; t29 = 3.51, P < .05). Significant improvements were observed in health care provider reports of empathy toward lung cancer survivors and attitude toward lung cancer care as well as significant reductions in lung cancer blame were noted. The empathic communication skills training was feasible, well received by oncology clinicians in Nigeria, and demonstrated improvements in health care provider-reported outcomes from before- to after-training.

Tobacco use, trauma exposure and PTSD: a systematic review.

Tobacco use remains one of the most significant preventable public health problems globally and is increasingly concentrated among vulnerable groups, including those with trauma exposure or diagnosed with PTSD. The goal of this systematic review was to update and extend previous reviews. Of the 7224 publications that met the initial criteria, 267 were included in the review. Summary topic areas include conceptual frameworks for the relation between trauma or PTSD and tobacco use; associations between trauma exposure or PTSD and tobacco use; number and type of trauma exposures and tobacco use; PTSD symptoms and tobacco use; Treatment-related studies; and the examination of causal relations. Evidence continues to indicate that individuals exposed to trauma or diagnosed with PTSD are more likely to use tobacco products, more nicotine dependent and less likely to abstain from tobacco even when provided evidence-based treatments than individuals without trauma. The most commonly cited causal association proposed was use of tobacco for self-regulation of negative affect associated with trauma. A small proportion of the studies addressed causality and mechanisms of action. Future work should incorporate methodological approaches and measures from which we can draw causal conclusions and mechanisms to support the development of viable therapeutic targets.

Implementation Strategies to Promote Short-Course Radiation for Bone Metastases.

Importance: For patients with nonspine bone metastases, short-course radiotherapy (RT) can reduce patient burden without sacrificing clinical benefit. However, there is great variation in uptake of short-course RT across practice settings. Objective: To evaluate whether a set of 3 implementation strategies facilitates increased adoption of a consensus recommendation to treat nonspine bone metastases with short-course RT (ie, ≤5 fractions). Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized quality improvement study was conducted at 3 community-based cancer centers within an existing academic-community partnership. Rollout was initiated in 3-month increments between October 2021 and May 2022. Participants included treating physicians and patients receiving RT for nonspine bone metastases. Data analysis was performed from October 2022 to May 2023. Exposures: Three implementation strategies-(1) dissemination of published consensus guidelines, (2) personalized audit-and-feedback reports, and (3) an email-based electronic consultation platform (eConsult)-were rolled out to physicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the consensus recommendation of short-course RT for nonspine bone metastases. Mixed-effects logistic regression at the bone metastasis level was used to model associations between the exposure of physicians to the set of strategies (preimplementation vs postimplementation) and short-course RT, while accounting for patient and physician characteristics and calendar time, with a random effect for physician. Physician surveys were administered before implementation and after implementation to assess feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of each strategy. Results: Forty-five physicians treated 714 patients (median [IQR] age at treatment start, 67 [59-75] years; 343 women [48%]) with 838 unique nonspine bone metastases during the study period. Implementing the set of strategies was not associated with use of short-course RT (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.34; P = .40), with unadjusted adherence rates of 53% (444 lesions) preimplementation vs 56% (469 lesions) postimplementation; however, the adjusted odds of adherence increased with calendar time (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.36; P = .003). All 3 implementation strategies were perceived as being feasible, acceptable, and appropriate; only the perception of audit-and-feedback appropriateness changed before vs after implementation (19 of 29 physicians [66%] vs 27 of 30 physicians [90%]; P = .03, Fisher exact test), with 20 physicians (67%) preferring reports quarterly. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, a multicomponent set of implementation strategies was not associated with increased use of short-course RT within an academic-community partnership. However, practice improved with time, perhaps owing to secular trends or physician awareness of the study. Audit-and-feedback was more appropriate than anticipated. Findings support the need to investigate optimal approaches for promoting evidence-based radiation practice across settings.

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.

Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Promising Implementation Strategies for Improving Quality of Smoking Cessation Support in Accredited Cancer Programs of the American College of Surgeons.

PURPOSE: Persistent smoking is associated with poor outcomes in cancer care. It is strongly recommended that oncology care providers provide cessation support; however, there is limited information about smoking cessation assessment and treatment patterns in routine oncology practice. METHODS: Leaders of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (National Accredited Program for Breast Cancer) elected to participate in a national quality improvement initiative (Just ASK) focused on smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care. Online baseline survey responses were received from 762 accredited programs. RESULTS: Most programs reported regularly asking about smoking (89.9%), documenting smoking history and current use (85.8%), and advising patients to quit (71.2%). However, less than half of programs reported documenting a smoking cessation treatment plan (41.7%). Even fewer programs reported regularly assisting patients with quitting (41.3%), providing self-help information (27.2%), providing individual counseling (18.2%), and referring patients to an affiliated tobacco treatment program (26.1%) or external Quitline (28.5%). Very few programs reported regularly prescribing medications (17.6%). Principal barriers to tobacco treatment delivery were lack of staff training (68.8%), lack of designated specialists (61.9%), perceived patient resistance (58.3%), lack of available resources (53.3%), competing clinical priorities (50.9%), inadequate program funding (40.6%), insufficient staff time (42.4%), and inadequate reimbursement (31.0%). CONCLUSION: Although programs reported a high rate of smoking assessment, critical gaps in advising and assisting patients with cessation were found. Improving equitable delivery of smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care will require addressing key organizational and provider barriers for implementation of best practices.

The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Physician knowledge, practice patterns, and barriers encountered regarding guideline-concordant use of bone modifying agents for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastasis, but not for castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). Physicians beliefs and practices regarding BMA therapy are poorly understood. METHODS: This was a qualitative interview study with embedded Likert-scale elements. Study participants were physicians who treat prostate cancer, located within an academic cancer center or an affiliated community-based network. Participants were asked about their experiences and practice patterns regarding BMA therapy. Participants used Likert-scale items to identify the most common barriers to guideline-concordant BMA use and the most effective potential interventions. Participants were subsequently asked to rank the three most common barriers and the three most effective interventions to reduce underuse (for CRPC) and overuse (for CSPC). RESULTS: Nineteen physicians were invited and 15 participated; one physician did not answer some questions as outside of their practice scope. All were aware of the recommendation for BMAs in CRPC. 14% (2/14) were unaware of the recommendation against BMA use for CSPC; an additional 29% (4/14) believed that BMA use could be appropriate for CSPC depending on the metastatic disease burden. 36% (5/14) were unaware of recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density. The most common barriers (occurring "often" or "sometimes") were obtaining dental clearance (11/15) and insufficient clinic time (6/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce underuse were dental navigation (11/15) and electronic medical record (EMR)-based guidance (9/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce overuse were peer-to-peer education (14/15) and EMR-based guidance (13/15). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of guideline recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density and against BMA use for CSPC was good, but not complete. Dental navigation, peer-to-peer education, and EMR-based guidance were preferred intervention strategies to improve guideline-concordant use.

Evaluating a Physician Audit and Feedback Intervention to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in Radiation Oncology in a Multisite Tertiary Cancer Center: A Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial participation continues to be low, slowing new cancer therapy development. Few strategies have been prospectively tested to address barriers to enrollment. We investigated the effectiveness of a physician audit and feedback report to improve clinical trial enrollment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a randomized quality improvement study among radiation oncologists at a multisite tertiary cancer network. Physicians in the intervention group received quarterly audit and feedback reports comparing the physician's trial enrollments with those of their peers. The primary outcome was trial enrollments. RESULTS: Among physicians randomized to receive the feedback report (n = 30), the median proportion of patients enrolled during the study period increased to 6.1% (IQR, 2.6%-9.3%) from 3.2% (IQR, 1.1%-10%) at baseline. Among those not receiving the feedback report (n = 29), the median proportion of patients enrolled increased to 4.1% (IQR, 1.3%-7.6%) from 1.6% (IQR, 0%-4.1%) at baseline. There was a nonsignificant change in the proportion of enrollments associated with receiving the feedback report (-0.6%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 1.8%; P = .6). Notably, there was an interaction between baseline trial accrual and receipt of feedback reports (P = .005), with enrollment declining among high accruers. There was an increase in enrollment throughout the study, regardless of study group (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a positive effect of physician audit and feedback on clinical trial enrollment was not observed. Future efforts should avoid disincentivizing high accruers and might consider pairing feedback with other patient- or physician-level strategies. The increase in trial enrollment in both groups over time highlights the importance of including a comparison group in quality improvement studies to reduce confounding from secular trends.

Effective Communication About Lung Cancer Screening Without Iatrogenic Stigma: A Brief Report Case Study Using the Lung Cancer Stigma Communications Assessment Tool of LungTalk.

Introduction: Stigma thwarts progress in lung cancer risk reduction and control and adversely affects patients across the entire lung cancer care continuum. In developing and disseminating patient and public-facing interventions to increase lung screening, we must be cognizant of how communications have the potential for further stigmatization of at-risk populations. Creation of the Lung Cancer Stigma Communications Assessment Tool (LCS-CAT) version 1 was supported by the American Cancer Society's National Lung Cancer Roundtable to help content developers identify, remove, and replace potentially stigmatizing language and imagery from materials designed to engage individuals across the lung cancer continuum. Methods: The LCS-CAT considers language, imagery, and context and was used to audit a public-facing health communication and decision support tool called LungTalk. Results: The audit performed by two behavioral scientists revealed multiple issues in all three areas, and specific feedback and alternatives were identified. Conclusions: Applying the LCS-CAT to LungTalk was a productive process that helped remove potentially stigmatizing language and imagery from this tool designed to engage individuals in the process of making an informed decision about lung screening. To support destigmatization of lung cancer, communication creators should consider a stigma biopsy on all public-facing campaigns for lung screening to help identify, eliminate, and replace messages that could compromise engagement with the lung cancer screening opportunity.

Advancing Proficiencies for Health Professionals in the Treatment of Tobacco Use Among Marginalized Communities: Development of a Competency-Based Curriculum and Virtual Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco-related disparities are a leading contributor to health inequities among marginalized communities. Lack of support from health professionals is one of the most cited barriers to tobacco cessation reported by these communities. Improving the proficiencies with which health professionals incorporate social and cultural influences into therapeutic interactions has the potential to address this critical barrier. In general, training to improve these proficiencies has shown promise, but the specific proficiencies required for treating tobacco use among marginalized communities are unknown. This project aimed to develop a competency-based curriculum to improve these proficiencies among health professionals with experience and training in the evidence-based treatment of tobacco use, and then pilot test the content delivered via an expert review of a virtual, self-paced workshop. METHODS: We used the Delphi Technique to systematically identify the specific competencies and corresponding knowledge and skill sets required to achieve these proficiencies. Educational content was developed to teach these competencies in a virtual workshop. The workshop was evaluated by 11 experts in the field by examining pre- and post-training changes in perceived knowledge, skill, and confidence levels and other quantitative and qualitative feedback. Repeated measures analysis of variance and paired sample t-tests were used to examine pre-post training differences. RESULTS: Six competencies and corresponding skill sets were identified. After exposure to the virtual workshop, the experts reported significant increases in the overall proficiency for each competency as well as increases in nearly all levels of knowledge, skill, and confidence within the competency skill sets. Qualitative and quantitative findings indicate that content was relevant to practice. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide preliminary support for 6 competencies and skills sets needed to improve therapeutic interpersonal interactions that recognize the importance of social and cultural influences in the treatment of tobacco use.

Getting ready for prime time: Recommended adaptations of an Empathic Communication Skills training intervention to reduce lung cancer stigma for a national multi-center trial.

Building upon prior work developing and pilot testing a provider-focused Empathic Communication Skills (ECS) training intervention, this study sought feedback from key invested partners who work with individuals with lung cancer (i.e. stakeholders including scientific and clinical advisors and patient advocates) on the ECS training intervention. The findings will be used to launch a national virtually-delivered multi-center clinical trial that will examine the effectiveness and implementation of the evidence-based ECS training intervention to reduce patients' experience of lung cancer stigma. A 1-day, hybrid, key invested partners meeting was held in New York City in Fall 2021. We presented the ECS training intervention to all conference attendees (N = 25) to seek constructive feedback on modifications of the training content and platform for intervention delivery to maximize its impact. After participating in the immersive training, all participants engaged in a group discussion guided by semi-structured probes. A deductive thematic content analysis was conducted to code focus group responses into 12 distinct a priori content modification recommendations. Content refinement was suggested in 8 of the 12 content modification themes: tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, removing elements, shortening/condensing content, lengthening/extending content, substituting elements, re-ordering elements, and repeating elements. Engagement and feedback from key invested multi-sector partner is a valuable resource for intervention content modifications. Using a structured format for refining evidence-based interventions can facilitate efforts to understand the nature of modifications required for scaling up interventions and the impact of these modifications on outcomes of interest. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05456841.

This study was done to get feedback from people who are involved with patients with lung cancer (PwLCs) including scientists, clinicians, and patient advocates on training in Empathic Communication Skills (ECS). The training is intended to reduce PwLCs experience of lung cancer stigma. The feedback is being used to help prepare for launching the training program in multiple cancer centers across the USA to test how well the training will work to reduce the stigma felt by PwLCs. A one-day, hybrid (in-person and virtual attendees) meeting was held in New York City in October 2021. We presented the original version of the ECS training program to all conference attendees (N = 25) to get feedback on modifications to improve the training program for the larger study planned at many cancer centers. After the training, all meeting attendees participated in a semi-structured group discussion. The content of the discussion was analyzed and sorted into 12 distinct categories that were defined before the meeting. Changes to the content were suggested in 8 of the 12 categories. These changes included tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, removing elements, shortening/condensing content, lengthening/extending content, substituting elements, re-ordering elements, and repeating elements. Engaging and getting feedback from people involved in a topic is a good way to improve content and delivery of training materials.

Do Tobacco Treatment Trials Address Disparities in Smoking Outcomes Among Black and Hispanic Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Black and Hispanic Patients Diagnosed with Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the representation of Black and Hispanic cancer patients in tobacco treatment trials, and to offer recommendations for future research. METHODS: We conducted two systematic searches of the literature (2018, 2021) using 5 databases (MEDLINE via EBSCO, Pubmed, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE)) to examine the prevalence of tobacco trials that included Black or Hispanic cancer patients. Two coders independently screened all articles at title, abstract, and full-text to identify eligible trials. Information about the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients included, trial design features, and whether the authors analyzed outcomes for Black and Hispanic patients were documented. RESULTS: Of 4682 identified studies, only 10 published trials included and reported on the rates of Black or Hispanic cancer patients enrolled in their tobacco trial. The proportion of enrolled Black cancer patients ranged from 2 to 55.6%. Only our studies documented enrollment rates for Hispanics, and rates were less than 6%. None of the studies offered strategies to promote or the accrual of Black or Hispanic patients. DISCUSSION: There remains a large gap in the literature regarding the reach and efficacy of tobacco treatment for Black and Hispanic cancer patients. Black and Hispanic cancer patients remain largely under-represented in tobacco cessation trials, limiting the applicability of existing, evidence-based treatments. To optimize intervention generalizability, future studies should emphasize the targeted recruitment and engagement of these patients in tobacco trials.

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.

Urologists' Perceptions and Practices Related to Patient Smoking and Cessation: A National Assessment From the 2021 American Urological Association Census.

OBJECTIVE: To assess urologists' perceptions and practices related to smoking and smoking cessation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six survey questions were designed to assess beliefs, practices, and determinants related to tobacco use assessment and treatment (TUAT) in outpatient urology clinics. These questions were included in an annual census survey (2021) offered to all practicing urologists. Responses were weighted to represent the practicing US population of nonpediatric urologists (N = 12,852). The primary outcome was affirmative responses to the question, "Do you agree it is important for urologists to screen for and provide smoking cessation treatment to patients in the outpatient clinic?" Practice patterns, perceptions, and opinions of optimal care delivery were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 98% of urologists agreed (27%) or strongly agreed (71%) that cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to urologic disease. However, only 58% agreed that TUAT is important in urology clinics. Most urologists (61%) advise patients who smoke to quit but do not provide additional cessation counseling or medications or arrange follow-up. The most frequently identified barriers to TUAT were lack of time (70%), perceptions that patients are unwilling to quit (44%), and lack of comfort prescribing cessation medications (42%). Additionally, 72% of respondents stated that urologists should provide a recommendation to quit and refer patients for cessation support. CONCLUSION: TUAT does not routinely occur in an evidence-based fashion in outpatient urology clinics. Addressing established barriers and facilitating these practices with multilevel implementation strategies can promote tobacco treatment and improve outcomes for patients with urologic disease.

Cigarette and Alternative Tobacco Product Use among Adult Cancer Survivors Enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. METHODS: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017-2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. RESULTS: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. IMPACT: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. METHODS: This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): Study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial.

Background. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. Methods. This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention ( LungTalk ) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. Discussion. This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. Trial Registration : The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of tobacco treatment programs in the NCI Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources. METHODS: DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes. RESULTS: In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8). CONCLUSION: Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.

Efficacy of smartphone applications to help cancer patients quit smoking: Protocol of the Quit2Heal randomized controlled trial.

Cigarette smoking is highly prevalent among cancer patients in the United States (US), with up to half of cancer patients smoking at the time of their initial cancer diagnosis. However, evidence-based cessation programs are rarely implemented in oncology care, and smoking is not consistently treated in cancer treatment settings. Consequently, there is an urgent need for accessible and efficacious cessation treatments that are uniquely tailored to the needs of cancer patients. Here we describe the design and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the efficacy of a smartphone app (Quit2Heal) versus a US Clinical Practice Guidelines-based app (QuitGuide) for smoking cessation among a planned sample of 422 cancer patients. Quit2Heal is designed to address cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and knowledge about the consequences of smoking/quitting. Quit2Heal is based on the principles of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, a behavioral therapy that teaches skills for accepting cravings to smoke without smoking, values-driven motivation to quit, and preventing relapse. The primary aim of the RCT is to determine whether Quit2Heal has significantly higher self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months relative to QuitGuide. The trial will also determine whether Quit2Heal's effect on cessation is (1) mediated by improvements in cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and knowledge about the consequences of smoking/quitting; and (2) moderated by baseline factors (e.g., cancer type, stage, time since diagnosis). If successful, Quit2Heal will offer a more efficacious, broadly scalable smoking cessation treatment that could be implemented alongside existing oncology care, thereby improving cancer outcomes.

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

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