Evidence-based Smoking Cessation Treatment Research Articles

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

BackgroundOptimising 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsIndividual 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.ConclusionAn 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.

Smoking Cessation and Tobacco-related Risk Perceptions among People with and without a Diagnosis of Cancer.

Little is known about how cancer diagnosis and tobacco-related risk perceptions are associated with smoking behavior. We used data from Waves (W) 1-3 (2013-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study to analyze longitudinal smoking behavior among adults who were current smokers and not previously diagnosed with cancer at baseline (W1; N = 7,829). The outcome was smoking cessation as of follow-up (W3). Explanatory variables were sociodemographics, other tobacco product use, adult at first cigarette, tobacco dependence, cancer diagnosis after baseline, and tobacco-related risk perceptions [cigarette harm perception, worry that tobacco products will damage one's health ("worry"), belief that smoking causes cancer ("belief"), and nondaily smoking harm perception]. Cessation was significantly associated with baseline worry (OR = 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.40), follow-up cigarette harm perception [OR = 2.01 (1.77-2.29)], and follow-up belief [OR = 1.40 (1.20-1.63)]. Cessation was inversely associated with follow-up (W3) worry, and this association was stronger among those without a cancer diagnosis (OR = 0.37 without cancer; OR = 0.76 among individuals diagnosed with cancer; interaction P = 0.001). Cessation is associated with tobacco-related risk perceptions, with different perceptions contributing in unique ways. Cessation is predicted by baseline worry but is inversely associated with worry at follow-up, suggesting that perhaps cessation has alleviated worry. The latter finding was stronger among respondents not diagnosed with cancer. Associations between cancer diagnosis, tobacco-related risk perceptions, and smoking behavior may inform the development of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions.

Smoking cessation interventions for Hispanic/Latino(a) adults in the USA: protocol for a systematic review and planned meta-analysis

IntroductionHispanic smokers face multiple cultural and socioeconomic barriers to cessation that lead to prominent health disparities, including a lack of language-appropriate, culturally relevant, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions. This systematic review...

Smoking Cessation Medication Prescribing for Smokers With and Without Mental Illness.

This study examined trends in receipt of smoking cessation medications among smokers with and without mental illness, including serious mental illness, from 2005 to 2019 and characterized physician attitudes and practices related to tobacco screening and cessation treatment. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data (2005-2019) were examined for receipt of cessation medication prescriptions for bupropion, varenicline, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) among 55,662 smokers-18,353 with any mental illness and 7,421 with serious mental illness. Qualitative interviews with 40 general internists and psychiatrists between October and November 2017 used a semistructured guide. MEPS data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and interviews were analyzed with hybrid inductive-deductive coding. From 2005 to 2019, at least 83% of smokers with or without mental illness did not receive varenicline, NRT, or bupropion. Over 14 years, the proportion of smokers receiving varenicline peaked at 2.1% among those with no mental illness, 2.9% among those with any mental illness, and 2.4% among those with serious mental illness. The respective peak proportions for NRT were 0.4%, 1.1%, and 1.6%; for bupropion, they were 1.2%, 8.4%, and 16.7%. Qualitative themes were consistent across general internists and psychiatrists; providers viewed cessation treatment as challenging because of the perception of smoking as a coping mechanism and agreed on barriers to treatment, including lack of insurance coverage and contraindications for people with mental illness. System- and provider-level strategies to support evidence-based smoking cessation treatment for people with and without mental illness are needed.

Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care-The New National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph.

Continued smoking after the diagnosis of cancer can markedly worsen oncology treatment side effects, cancer outcomes, cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality. Conversely, mounting evidence demonstrates that smoking cessation by patients with cancer improves outcomes. A cancer diagnosis often serves as a teachable moment, characterized by high motivation to quit. However, too few patients with cancer who smoke are offered evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, and too few engage in such treatment. The National Cancer Institute commissioned Tobacco Control Monograph 23, Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care, to review and synthesize the evidence that clarifies the need to intervene with smoking in cancer care. Although many patients with newly diagnosed cancer who smoke make quit attempts, many of these are unsuccessful, and among those who successfully quit, relapse is common. Indeed, an estimated 12.2% of adults ever diagnosed with cancer reported they currently smoked (National Health Interview Survey, 2020). Patients with cancer who smoke are likely to benefit from smoking cessation treatments, including counseling and US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, and there are many effective strategies to increase delivery of smoking cessation treatment in cancer care settings. Smoking cessation is among the most effective treatment options for improving the likelihood of survival, quality of life, and overall health of patients with cancer who smoke. It is important for cancer care clinicians and patients to realize that it is never too late to quit smoking and that there are clear benefits to doing so, regardless of cancer type.

Neuroeconomic predictors of smoking cessation outcomes: A preliminary study of delay discounting in treatment-seeking adult smokers

Large proportions of smokers are unsuccessful in evidence-based smoking cessation treatment and identifying prognostic predictors may inform improvements in treatment. Steep discounting of delayed rewards (delay discounting) is a robust predictor of poor smoking cessation outcome, but the underlying neural predictors have not been investigated. Forty-one treatment-seeking adult smokers completed a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) delay discounting paradigm prior to initiating a 9-week smoking cessation treatment protocol. Behavioral performance significantly predicted treatment outcomes (verified 7-day abstinence, n = 18; relapse, n = 23). Participants in the relapse group exhibited smaller area under the curve (d = 1.10) and smaller AUC was correlated with fewer days to smoking relapse (r = 0.56, p < 0.001) Neural correlates of discounting included medial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate, precuneus and anterior insula, and interactions between choice type and relapse status were present for the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, precuneus and the striatum. This initial investigation implicates differential neural activity in regions associated with frontal executive and default mode activity, as well as motivational circuits. Larger samples are needed to improve the resolution in identifying the neural underpinnings linking steep delay discounting to smoking cessation.

Electronic health record closed-loop referral (“eReferral”) to a state tobacco quitline: a retrospective case study of primary care implementation challenges and adaptations

BackgroundHealth system change can increase the reach of evidence-based smoking cessation treatments. Proactive electronic health record (EHR)-enabled, closed-loop referral (“eReferral”) to state tobacco quitlines increases the rates at which patients who smoke accept cessation treatment. Implementing such system change poses many challenges, however, and adaptations to system contexts are often required, but are understudied. This retrospective case study identified adaptations to eReferral EHR tools and implementation strategies in two healthcare systems.MethodsIn a large clustered randomized controlled trial (C-RCT; NCT02735382) conducted in 2016–2017, 11 primary care clinics in two healthcare systems implemented quitline eReferral, starting with 1 pilot clinic per system followed by 2 phases of implementation (an experimental phase in 5–6 test clinics per system and then a system-wide dissemination phase in both systems). Adaptations were informed by stakeholder input from live trainings, follow-up calls and meetings in the first month after eReferral launch, emails, direct observation by researchers, and clinic staff survey responses. Retrospective, descriptive analysis characterized implementation strategy modifications and adaptations using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS). A pre- and post-implementation survey assessed staff ratings of eReferral acceptability and implementation barriers and facilitators.FindingsMajor modifications to closed-loop eReferral implementation strategies included aligning the eReferral initiative with other high-priority health system objectives, modifying eReferral user interfaces and training in their use, modifying eReferral workflows and associated training, and maintaining and enhancing interoperability and clinician feedback functions. The two health systems both used Epic EHRs but used different approaches to interfacing with the quitline vendor and integrating eReferral into clinician workflows. Both health systems engaged in iterative refinement of the EHR alert prompting eReferral, the eReferral order, trainings, and workflows. Staff survey comments suggested moderate acceptability of eReferral processes and identified possible targets for future modifications in eReferral, including reducing clinician burden related to EHR documentation and addressing clinicians’ negative beliefs about patient receptivity to cessation treatment.ConclusionsSystem-wide implementation of tobacco quitline eReferral in primary care outpatient clinics is feasible but requires extensive coordination across stakeholders, tailoring to local health system EHR configurations, and sensitivity to system- and clinic-specific workflows.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02735382. Registered on 12 August 2016.

How to persuade more primary care professionals to adopt a valued smoking cessation referral aid: a cross-sectional study of facilitators and barriers

BackgroundTo study the factors associated with the intention of primary care professionals (PCPs) to use or not use a referral aid (RA) for selecting an evidence-based smoking cessation intervention (EBSCI).MethodsParticipants (n = 85) were recruited from June to September 2020 to complete an online questionnaire based on the I-Change Model to assess the factors associated with the adoption of RA. The differences between PCPs with (n = 37) and without (n = 48) the intention to adopt in terms of demographics, motivational factors, and post-motivational factors were subsequently assessed. Correlation and logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the factors associated with the intention to adopt.ResultsBoth groups indicated that they highly appreciated the RA. However, PCPs without the intention to adopt expressed a more negative attitude towards the RA, experienced less social support, showed low self-efficacy, and encountered barriers such as lack of time and skills. The factors most strongly associated with the intention to adopt were advantages, disadvantages, self-efficacy, less barriers, working in a solo practice and age.ConclusionsThe adoption of RA can be facilitated in two ways. The first one is by increasing the added value of the tool through a second round of co-creation focusing on the adoptability of the RA in practice. The second approach is by communicating the added value of referring to EBSCIS and thereby using the RA by implementing it in smoking cessation training for PCPs, which could also help to improve the attitude, social support, self-efficacy, and perceived skills in terms of RA usage among PCPs.ImpactThis study is the first work in the Netherlands to investigate the willingness of PCPs to actively refer patients to other EBSCIs in addition to providing face-to-face counseling themselves.Trial registrationThe study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7020).

How to Effectively Help Patients Stop Smoking: A Primer for Cardiologists.

Tobacco smoking is a chronic disorder based on nicotine dependence and is the single most reversible risk factor of cardiovascular diseases.1 This primer provides an overview of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions, pharmacological and nonpharmacological. Interventions with limited or conflicting data are also discussed. These recommendations are intended for clinicians (physicians and nonphysicians) because smoking cessation services is a fundamental responsibility for health care providers in all settings.

FINDINGS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FROM A SMOKING CESSATION TRIAL UTILIZING A CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT TOOL.

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of disease, death, and disability in the United States. Dental practitioners are advised to provide evidence-based smoking cessation interventions to their patients, yet dental practitioners frequently fail to deliver brief smoking cessation advice. To test whether giving dental practitioners a clinical decisions support (CDS) system embedded in their electronic dental record would increase the rate at which patients who smoke (1) report receiving a brief intervention or referral to treatment during a recent dental visit, (2) taking action related to smoking cessation within 7 days of visit, and (3) stop smoking for 1 day or more or reduce the amount smoked by 50% within 6 months. Two-group, parallel arm, cluster-randomized trial. From March through December 2019, 15 nonacademic primary care dental clinics were randomized via covariate adaptive randomization to either a usual care arm or the CDS arm. Adult smokers completed an initial telephone survey within 7 days of their visit and another survey after 6 months. Forty-three patients from 5 CDS and 13 patients from 2 usual care clinics completed the 7-day survey. While the proportion of patients who reported receipt of a brief intervention or referral to treatment was significantly greater in the CDS arm than the usual care arm (84.3% vs 58.6%; P = .005), the differences in percentage of patients who took any action related to smoking cessation within 7 days (44.4% vs 22.3%; P = .077), or stopped smoking for one day or more and/or reduced amount smoked by 50% within 6 months (63.1% vs 46.2%; P = .405) were large but not statistically significant. Despite interruption by COVID-19, these results demonstrate a promising approach to assist dental practitioners in providing their patients with smoking cessation screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment.

OA10.03 A Randomized Trial of Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting

Lung cancer mortality is reduced via low-dose CT screening and treatment of early-stage disease. Evidence-based smoking cessation treatment delivered in the lung cancer screening setting can further reduce mortality. We report the quit rates, the short-term cost per quit, and long-term cost effectiveness of a trial of telephone counseling and nicotine replacement for individuals who smoke and were undergoing lung screening at 8 US screening facilities.

A Randomized Trial of Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.

Lung cancer mortality is reduced via low-dose computed tomography screening and treatment of early-stage disease. Evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in the lung screening setting can further reduce mortality. We report the results of a cessation trial from the National Cancer Institute's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination collaboration. Eligible patients (n = 818) aged 50-80 years were randomly assigned (May 2017-January 2021) to the intensive vs minimal arms (8 vs 3 phone sessions plus 8 vs 2 weeks of nicotine patches, respectively). Bio-verified (primary) and self-reported 7-day abstinence rates were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months post random assignment. Logistic regression analyses evaluated the effects of study arm. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Participants reported 48.0 (SD = 17.2) pack-years, and 51.6% were not ready to quit in less than 30 days. Self-reported 3-month quit rates were statistically significantly higher in the intensive vs minimal arm (14.3% vs 7.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26 to 3.18). Bio-verified abstinence was lower but with similar relative differences between arms (9.1% vs 3.9%; OR = 2.70, 95% CI = 1.44 to 5.08). Compared with the minimal arm, the intensive arm was more effective among those with greater nicotine dependence (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 1.55 to 7.76), normal screening results (OR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.32 to 5.03), high engagement in counseling (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.50 to 6.14), and patch use (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.39 to 5.68). Abstinence rates did not differ statistically significantly between arms at 6 months (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.68 to 2.11) or 12 months (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.42). Delivering intensive telephone counseling and nicotine replacement with lung screening is an effective strategy to increase short-term smoking cessation. Methods to maintain short-term effects are needed. Even with modest quit rates, integrating cessation treatment into lung screening programs may have a large impact on tobacco-related mortality.

Association Between Smoking Cessation Treatment and Healthcare Costs in a Single-Payer Public Healthcare System.

There has been little investigation of whether the clinical effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments translates into differences in healthcare costs, using real-world cost data, to determine whether anticipated benefits of smoking cessation treatment are being realized. We sought to determine the association between smoking cessation treatment and healthcare costs using linked administrative healthcare data. In total, 4752 patients who accessed a smoking cessation program in Ontario, Canada between July 2011 and December 2012 (treatment cohort) were each matched to a smoker who did not access these services (control cohort). The primary outcome was total healthcare costs in Canadian dollars, and secondary outcomes were sector-specific costs, from one year prior to the index date until December 31, 2017, or death. Costs were partitioned into four phases: pretreatment, treatment, posttreatment, and end-of-life for those who died. Among females, total healthcare costs were similar between cohorts in pretreatment and posttreatment phases, but higher for the treatment cohort during the treatment phase ($4,554 vs. $3,237, p < .001). Among males, total healthcare costs were higher in the treatment cohort during pretreatment ($3,911 vs. $2,784, p < .001), treatment ($4,533 vs. $3,105, p < .001) and posttreatment ($5,065 vs. $3,922, p = .001) phases. End-of-life costs did not differ. Healthcare sector-specific costs followed a similar pattern. Five-year healthcare costs were similar between females who participated in a treatment program versus those that did not, with a transient increase during the treatment phase only. Among males, treatment was associated with persistently higher healthcare costs. Further study is needed to address the implications with respect to long-term costs. The clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and behavioral smoking cessation treatments is well established, but whether such treatments are associated with healthcare costs, using real-world data, has received limited attention. Our findings suggest that the use of a smoking cessation treatment offered by their health system is associated with persistent higher healthcare costs among males but a transient increase among females. Given increasing access to evidence-based smoking cessation treatments is an important component in national tobacco control strategies, these data highlight the need for further exploration of the relations between smoking cessation treatment engagement and healthcare costs.

Interventions for Increasing Digital Equity and Access (IDEA) among rural patients who smoke: Study protocol for a pragmatic randomized pilot trial

BackgroundCigarette smoking prevalence is higher among rural compared with urban adults, yet access to cessation programming is reduced. The Increasing Digital Equity and Access (IDEA) study aims to evaluate three digital access and literacy interventions for promoting engagement with an online evidence-based smoking cessation treatment (EBCT) program among rural adults. MethodsThe pilot trial will use a pragmatic, three-arm, randomized, parallel-group design with participants recruited from a Midwest community-based health system in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. All participants will receive an online, 12-week, EBCT program, and written materials on digital access resources. Participants will be stratified based on state of residence and randomly assigned with 1:1:1 allocation to one of three study groups: (1) Control Condition-no additional study intervention (n = 30); (2) Loaner Digital Device-Bluetooth enabled iPad with data plan coverage loaned for the study duration (n = 30); (3) Loaner Digital Device + Coaching Support–loaner device plus up to six, 15–20 min motivational interviewing-based coaching calls to enhance participants' digital access and literacy (n = 30). All participants will complete study assessments at baseline and 4- and 12-weeks post-randomization. Outcomes are cessation program and trial engagement, biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence, and patient experience. ResultsA rural community advisory committee was formed that fostered co-design of the study protocol for relevance to rural populations, including the trial design and interventions. ConclusionStudy findings, processes, and resources may have relevance to other health systems aiming to foster digital inclusion in smoking cessation and chronic disease management programs and clinical trials in rural communities.

Increased Reach and Effectiveness With a Low-Burden Point-of-Care Tobacco Treatment Program in Cancer Clinics.

Tobacco cessation after a cancer diagnosis can extend patient survival by improving outcomes for primary cancer and preventing secondary cancers. However, smoking is often unaddressed in cancer care, highlighting the need for strategies to increase treatment reach and cessation. This study examined a low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment program (ELEVATE) featuring an electronic health record-enabled smoking module and decision support tools to increase the reach and effectiveness of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. This study included adult outpatient tobacco smokers (n=13,651) in medical oncology, internal medicine, and surgical oncology clinics from a large midwestern healthcare system. We examined reach and effectiveness of ELEVATE with 2 comparisons: (1) preimplementation versus postimplementation of ELEVATE and (2) ELEVATE versus usual care. Data were evaluated during 2 time periods: preimplementation (January through May 2018) and postimplementation (June through December 2018), with smoking cessation assessed at the last follow-up outpatient encounter during the 6 months after these periods. The proportion of current tobacco smokers receiving cessation treatment increased from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (1.6%-27.9%; difference, 26.3%; relative risk, 16.9 [95% CI, 9.8-29.2]; P<.001). Compared with 27.9% treatment reach with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, reach within usual care clinics ranged from 11.8% to 12.0% during this same period. The proportion of tobacco smokers who subsequently achieved cessation increased significantly from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (12.0% vs 17.2%; difference, 5.2%; relative risk, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.5]; P=.002). Compared with 17.2% smoking cessation with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, achievement of cessation within usual care clinics ranged from 8.2% to 9.9% during this same period. A low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment strategy increased tobacco treatment and cessation, thereby improving access to and the impact of evidence-based cessation treatment. Using implementation strategies to embed tobacco treatment in every healthcare encounter promises to engage more smokers in evidence-based treatment and facilitate smoking cessation, thereby improving care cancer for patients who smoke.

MP31-08 USE OF SMOKING CESSATION PHARMACOTHERAPY FOLLOWING CYSTECTOMY AMONG SMOKERS WITH BLADDER CANCER

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP31-08 USE OF SMOKING CESSATION PHARMACOTHERAPY FOLLOWING CYSTECTOMY AMONG SMOKERS WITH BLADDER CANCER Eli Rapoport, Marc Bjurlin, Helena Furberg, Timothy Donahue, Bernard Bochner, Jamie Ostroff, and Richard Matulewicz Eli RapoportEli Rapoport More articles by this author , Marc BjurlinMarc Bjurlin More articles by this author , Helena FurbergHelena Furberg More articles by this author , Timothy DonahueTimothy Donahue More articles by this author , Bernard BochnerBernard Bochner More articles by this author , Jamie OstroffJamie Ostroff More articles by this author , and Richard MatulewiczRichard Matulewicz More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002580.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Smoking is a leading cause of bladder cancer (BC). Despite the health benefits of smoking cessation following BC diagnosis, many patients continue smoking. Hospitalization for surgery may provide “teachable moments” to promote smoking cessation. We sought to assess whether evidence-based smoking cessation pharmacotherapies (SCP) were ordered for current smokers during hospitalizations following cystectomy. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database, an all-payer data set capturing 25% of US hospital admissions, was used to develop a sample of adult current smokers undergoing cystectomy for BC during 2009-2019. Primary outcome was receipt of SCP, defined as either nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or prescription medications. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and the proportion of admissions where SCP was ordered. Associations between SCP and patient- and hospital-level factors were calculated using weighted and unweighted regressions, respectively. Associations between SCP order and surgical outcomes were explored using weighted logistic regressions. RESULTS: In total, 3676 eligible patients (weighted N=16064) were included. Median age was 64 years, 78% were male, 7.6% Black, and the median Elixhauser comorbidity score was 10. Most patients were treated at large academic centers and underwent radical cystectomy (87.5%). 27.9% of all patients received SCP; the majority (93.6%) of orders were for NRT. At the hospital level, there was significant variation in SCP delivery (Figure 1). After adjustment, older and Black patients were less likely to receive SCP. Patients having radical cystectomy and those treated at Western or Midwestern (vs. Southern) hospitals were more likely to receive SCP. Patient receipt of SCP did not have a significant association with length of stay, readmission rate, or 90-day mortality after adjusting for patient factors. Hospital-level cystectomy volume did not have a significant association with receipt of SCP (adjusted β=-0.001; 95% CI: -0.011, 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: SCP is rarely ordered for current smokers during their inpatient admission following cystectomy. This finding demonstrates a missed opportunity to initiate evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, particularly for older and Black BC patients. Source of Funding: None © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e524 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Eli Rapoport More articles by this author Marc Bjurlin More articles by this author Helena Furberg More articles by this author Timothy Donahue More articles by this author Bernard Bochner More articles by this author Jamie Ostroff More articles by this author Richard Matulewicz More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Efficacy of an acceptance and commitment therapy-based smartphone application for helping rural populations quit smoking: Results from the iCanQuit randomized trial

Limited access to evidence-based smoking cessation interventions among rural populations contributes to high rates of cigarette smoking and poor cessation outcomes. Yet, accessible digital interventions for cessation focusing on rural populations are lacking. In a secondary analysis, we determined the acceptability and efficacy of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)-based smartphone application (iCanQuit) relative to a U.S. Clinical Practice Guidelines (USCPG)-based smartphone application (QuitGuide) for smoking cessation among rural participants enrolled in the two-arm randomized iCanQuit trial. Participants were enrolled between May 2017 and September 2018 and randomized to either receive iCanQuit or QuitGuide for 12-months. Rural residence was determined by sub-county level Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. A total of 550 rural participants were recruited from 43 U.S. states. Self-reported complete-case 30-day point-prevalence abstinence was 15% (33/226) for iCanQuit vs. 9% (22/253) for QuitGuide at 3-months (OR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.03, 3.25) and 29% (66/231) for iCanQuit vs. 25% (64/288) for QuitGuide at 12-months (OR = 1.19 95% CI: 0.80, 1.79). Retention rate was 89% at 12-months and did not differ by arm. iCanQuit vs. QuitGuide participants were significantly more engaged and satisfied with the iCanQuit application. Increased acceptance of internal cues to smoke mediated the effect of treatment on cessation. Findings suggest that iCanQuit had significantly higher short-term quit rates, descriptively higher long-term quit rates, and operated through its hypothesized mechanisms of action relative to QuitGuide. Future larger studies are needed to further evaluate the efficacy of and methods for disseminating the iCanQuit application for smoking cessation among U.S. rural adults nationwide.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02724462

Underutilization of guideline-concordant smoking cessation treatments in surgical patients: Lessons from a learning health system.

While smoking is a well-established risk factor for surgical complications, it is unclear how frequently guideline-concordant tobacco treatments are prescribed to surgical patients. In this cross-sectional study including 164673 unique patients evaluated in outpatient surgery clinics at a single institution in 2020, despite a relatively high smoking prevalence (14.7%), guideline-concordant treatment rates were very low, with only 12.7% of patients receiving pharmacotherapy and 31.7% receiving any treatment. Addressing disparities in smoking cessation treatments are critical given the disproportionate impact of smoking on surgical outcomes.

Longitudinal Electronic Cigarette Use Among Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Trial.

Many cancer patients who smoke report concurrent e-cigarette use. Using a mixed-methods approach, we aimed to (1) describe longitudinal e-cigarette use over 6 months after a cancer diagnosis and (2) assess the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, among cancer patients in a smoking cessation trial. Data were from a 2-site randomized controlled trial of Standard (brief counseling) versus Intensive treatment (sustained counseling plus smoking cessation medication) in individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer. Participants (n = 303) reported e-cigarette use at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Biochemically-verified past 7-day cigarette abstinence was collected at 6 months. Qualitative interviews at 6 months explored factors related to e-cigarette use. E-cigarette use prevalence was highest between baseline and 3 months (16%) and declined over time. Participants using e-cigarettes at follow-up had higher baseline cigarette dependence and smoked more heavily. Multivariable analyses found no significant association between follow-up e-cigarette use and 6-month cigarette abstinence. E-cigarette use at follow-up was higher in the Standard versus Intensive treatment group (p = .003 and .001 at 3 and 6 mo, respectively). Smoking cessation and health concerns were primary reasons for using e-cigarettes. Among individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in a smoking cessation intervention trial, e-cigarette use during trial participation was not associated with smoking abstinence. Individuals who chose to use e-cigarettes were less likely to be receiving intensive cessation support as part of the trial. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation in cancer patients. E-cigarette use was not associated with cigarette abstinence at 6 months among adults who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Individuals with easier access to evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may be less likely to use e-cigarettes.

Do professional perspectives on evidence-based smoking cessation methods align? A Delphi study among researchers and healthcare professionals.

The use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) can significantly increase the number of successful smoking cessation attempts. To obtain an overview of the knowledge and viewpoints on the effectiveness and use of SCIs, a three-round online Delphi study was conducted among researchers and primary care professionals (PCPs). The four objectives of this study are to gain an overview of (i) the criteria important for recommending SCIs, (ii) the perceptions of both groups on the effectiveness of SCIs, (iii) the factors to consider when counseling different (high-risk) groups of smokers and (iv) the perceptions of both groups on the use of e-cigarettes as an SCI. We found a high level of agreement within groups on which smoker characteristics should be considered when recommending an SCI to smokers. We also found that PCPs display a lower degree of consensus on the effectiveness of SCIs. Both groups see a value in the use of special protocols for different (high-risk) groups of patients, but the two groups did not reach consensus on the use of e-cigarettes as a means to quit. Making an inventory of PCPs’ needs regarding SCIs and their usage may provide insight into how to facilitate a better uptake in the primary care setting.