Access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation: a mixed-methods systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to better understand access to, acceptance of and adherence to cancer prehabilitation. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, ProQuest Medical Library, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature were systematically searched for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published in English between January 2017 and June 2023. Screening, data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using Covidence™ systematic review software. Data were analysed and synthesised thematically to address the question 'What do we know about access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation, particularly among socially deprived and minority ethnic groups?' The protocol is published on PROSPERO CRD42023403776 RESULTS: Searches identified 11,715 records, and 56 studies of variable methodological quality were included: 32 quantitative, 15 qualitative and nine mixed-methods. Analysis identified facilitators and barriers at individual and structural levels, and with interpersonal connections important for prehabilitation access, acceptance and adherence. No study reported analysis of facilitators and barriers to prehabilitation specific to people from ethnic minority communities. One study described health literacy as a barrier to access for people from socioeconomically deprived communities. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited empirical research of barriers and facilitators to inform improvement in equity of access to cancer prehabilitation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: To enhance the inclusivity of cancer prehabilitation, adjustments may be needed to accommodate individual characteristics and attention given to structural factors, such as staff training. Interpersonal connections are proposed as a fundamental ingredient for successful prehabilitation.

Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). METHODS: Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit. CONCLUSIONS: There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

Barriers and facilitators to engaging in smoking cessation support among lung screening participants.

INTRODUCTION: Embedded smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening is recommended in the UK; however, little is known about why individuals decline smoking cessation support in this setting. This study identified psychosocial factors that influence smoking cessation and quit motivation among those who declined support for quitting smoking alongside lung cancer screening. METHODS: Qualitative interviews conducted between August 2019 - April 2021 with thirty adults with a smoking history, recruited from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Participants had declined smoking cessation support. Verbatim interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty percent of participants were male and the majority were from the most deprived groups. Participants reported low motivation and a variety of barriers to stopping smoking. Participants described modifiable behavioural factors that influenced their quit motivation including self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness of stop-smoking services including smoking cessation aids, risk-minimising beliefs, lack of social support, absence of positive influences on smoking and beliefs about smoking/smoking cessation. Broader contextual factors included social isolation and stigma, COVID-19 and comorbid mental and physical health conditions that deterred smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: To encourage engagement in smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening, interventions should seek to encourage positive beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation aids and increase confidence in quitting as part of supportive, person-centred care. Interventions should also acknowledge the wider social determinants of health among the lung screening-eligible population. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides an in-depth understanding of the beliefs surrounding smoking and smoking cessation and further potential psychosocial factors that influence those attending lung cancer screening. Many of the barriers to smoking cessation found in the present study are similar to those outside of a lung screening setting however this work offers an understanding of potential facilitators that should be considered in future lung screening programmes.

Assessing, updating and utilising primary care smoking records for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for high-risk populations is being implemented in the UK. However, inclusive identification and invitation of the high-risk population is a major challenge for equitable lung screening implementation. Primary care electronic health records (EHRs) can be used to identify lung screening-eligible individuals based on age and smoking history, but the quality of EHR smoking data is limited. This study piloted a novel strategy for ascertaining smoking status in primary care and tested EHR search combinations to identify those potentially eligible for lung cancer screening. METHODS: Seven primary care General Practices in South Wales, UK were included. Practice-level data on missing tobacco codes in EHRs were obtained. To update patient EHRs with no tobacco code, we developed and tested an algorithm that sent a text message request to patients via their GP practice to update their smoking status. The patient's response automatically updated their EHR with the relevant tobacco code. Four search strategies using different combinations of tobacco codes for the age range 55-74+ 364 were tested to estimate the likely impact on the potential lung screening-eligible population in Wales. Search strategies included: BROAD (wide range of ever smoking codes); VOLUME (wide range of ever-smoking codes excluding "trivial" former smoking); FOCUSED (cigarette-related tobacco codes only), and RECENT (current smoking within the last 20 years). RESULTS: Tobacco codes were not recorded for 3.3% of patients (n = 724/21,956). Of those with no tobacco code and a validated mobile telephone number (n = 333), 55% (n = 183) responded via text message with their smoking status. Of the 183 patients who responded, 43.2% (n = 79) had a history of smoking and were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening. Applying the BROAD search strategy was projected to result in an additional 148,522 patients eligible to receive an invitation for lung cancer screening when compared to the RECENT strategy. CONCLUSION: An automated text message system could be used to improve the completeness of primary care EHR smoking data in preparation for rolling out a national lung cancer screening programme. Varying the search strategy for tobacco codes may have profound implications for the size of the population eligible for lung-screening invitation.

Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study.

Background: Lung cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with early detection through screening critical to improving patient outcomes. However, recruiting high-risk individuals, particularly in deprived populations, for screening remains a considerable challenge. This study aims to co-design a targeted recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening, tailored to the specific needs and experiences of high-risk individuals, in collaboration with a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel and expert stakeholders in Ireland. Methods: We will employ a mixed-methods design guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions. Our approach will integrate systematic review findings on screening participation interventions, evaluation of the recruitment strategy's feasibility in an Irish context, and the application of behavioural science frameworks. The target population includes individuals over 55 years, either current smokers or those who quit within the last year, who reside in highly deprived areas. Conclusion: This co-designed recruitment strategy will combine evidence-based research, local context understanding, and stakeholder input to develop a solution that is both scientifically robust and tailored to the target population's needs. This patient-centred approach aims to increase the potential for successful implementation of lung cancer screening programs, thereby improving early detection and patient outcomes.

Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context.

BACKGROUND: Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population. METHODS: An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel. RESULTS: Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs. CONCLUSION: An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.

Supporting patients to stop smoking when they attend lung cancer screening will improve the overall benefit and value for money of the service. This study developed a booklet containing pictures of a person's own lungs and heart taken during a lung cancer screening scan. The booklet shows areas of damage to the heart and lungs caused by smoking, delivered alongside positive messages to build confidence to stop smoking and let patients know about the benefits of stopping smoking. To develop the booklet, we worked with members of public who currently or used to smoke. Eight members of public completed a survey asking about the best ways to present information about risk. Thirteen members of the public took part in focus groups to co-develop the booklet. One workshop with academic and healthcare professionals and one workshop with a public involvement panel were held to develop and finalise the booklet. Members of the public said they wanted information about the short-term benefits of quitting smoking, and that coloured drawings next to the scan picture would help them to understand what the scan picture meant. Having someone specially trained to guide them through the booklet was considered important. Being told about their risk for lung cancer in the future was off-putting and might discourage a quit attempt. We have co-developed a booklet to support people to quit smoking when they go for lung cancer screening. The booklet is currently being tested to see whether it can support people to quit smoking.

Protocol for a feasibility study of a cancer symptom awareness campaign to support the rapid diagnostic centre referral pathway in a socioeconomically deprived area: Targeted Intensive Community-based campaign To Optimise Cancer awareness (TIC-TOC).

INTRODUCTION: Rapid diagnostic centres (RDCs) are being implemented across the UK to accelerate the assessment of vague suspected cancer symptoms. Targeted behavioural interventions are needed to augment RDCs that serve socioeconomically deprived populations who are disproportionately affected by cancer, have lower cancer symptom awareness and are less likely to seek help for cancer symptoms. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating a community-based vague cancer symptom awareness intervention in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Intervention materials and messages were coproduced with local stakeholders in Cwm Taf Morgannwg, Wales. Cancer champions will be trained to deliver intervention messages and distribute intervention materials using broadcast media (eg, local radio), printed media (eg, branded pharmacy bags, posters, leaflets), social media (eg, Facebook) and attending local community events. A cross-sectional questionnaire will include self-reported patient interval (time between noticing symptoms to contacting the general practitioner), cancer symptom recognition, cancer beliefs and barriers to presentation, awareness of campaign messages, healthcare resource use, generic quality of life and individual and area-level deprivation indicators. Consent rates and proportion of missing data for patient questionnaires (n=189) attending RDCs will be measured. Qualitative interviews and focus groups will assess intervention acceptability and barriers/facilitators to delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was given by the London-West London & GTAC Research Ethics (21/LO/0402). This project will inform a potential future controlled study to assess intervention effectiveness in reducing the patient interval for vague cancer symptoms. The results will be critical to informing national policy and practice regarding behavioural interventions to support RDCs in highly deprived populations.

Health behaviour change among UK adults during the pandemic: findings from the COVID-19 cancer attitudes and behaviours study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 related lockdowns may have affected engagement in health behaviours among the UK adult population. This prospective observational study assessed socio-demographic patterning in attempts to change and maintain a range of health behaviours and changes between two time points during the pandemic. METHODS: Adults aged 18 years and over (n = 4,978) were recruited using Dynata (an online market research platform) and the HealthWise Wales platform, supplemented through social media advertising. Online surveys were conducted in August/September 2020 when lockdown restrictions eased in the UK following the first major UK lockdown (survey phase 1) and in February/March 2021 during a further national lockdown (survey phase 2). Measures derived from the Cancer Awareness Measure included self-reported attempts to reduce alcohol consumption, increase fruit/vegetable consumption, increase physical activity, lose weight and reduce/stop smoking. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess individual health behaviour change attempts over time, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, employment and education. RESULTS: Around half of participants in survey phase 1 reported trying to increase physical activity (n = 2607, 52.4%), increase fruit/vegetables (n = 2445, 49.1%) and lose weight (n = 2413, 48.5%), with 19.0% (n = 948) trying to reduce alcohol consumption among people who drink. Among the 738 participants who smoked, 51.5% (n = 380) were trying to reduce and 27.4% (n = 202) to stop smoking completely. Most behaviour change attempts were more common among women, younger adults and minority ethnic group participants. Efforts to reduce smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.17) and stop smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.80-1.20) did not differ significantly in phase 2 compared to phase 1. Similarly, changes over time in attempts to improve other health behaviours were not statistically significant: physical activity (aOR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.99-1.16); weight loss (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90-1.00); fruit/vegetable intake (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.06) and alcohol use (aOR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.92-1.91). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of participants reported attempts to change health behaviours in the initial survey phase. However, the lack of change observed over time indicated that overall motivation to engage in healthy behaviours was sustained among the UK adult population, from a period shortly after the first lockdown toward the end of the second prolonged lockdown.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible. METHODS: Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.