1
|
Melzer AC, Campbell ME, Hagedorn HJ, Fu SS. Clinician Views of Proactive Tobacco Treatment Programs: A Qualitative Evaluation. J Gen Intern Med 2024:10.1007/s11606-024-08834-3. [PMID: 38831247 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-024-08834-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 05/21/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Proactive tobacco treatment programs are an evidence-based strategy to recruit patients who smoke to make supported quit attempts. However, such programs are rarely implemented. We performed a qualitative assessment of clinicians to inform the creation of a proactive outreach program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who smoke. METHODS Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we conducted semi-structured interviews to assess clinician views of proactive outreach, including barriers, program structure, and the use of technology. Clinicians included primary and specialty care physicians, nurses and advanced practice providers, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, a psychologist, and relevant members of leadership. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS Clinicians in all roles identified that proactive outreach could be an effective use of resources to help patients with COPD who smoke quit with several advantages over the current state. Clinicians disagreed on the priority population (e.g., younger patients, sicker patients), and to some extent on whether proactive outreach is a clinical priority. Though they supported that technology could be part of the outreach program, most advocated for multiple avenues (phone calls, drop-in clinic, texting), as these patients were perceived to be low technology utilizers. The primary implementation barriers were competing priorities and cost, as well as unclear billing and staffing models. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians support proactive outreach for patients with COPD, but the optimal way to structure, staff, and fund such programs remains unclear. Health systems should leverage implementation strategies to speed uptake of these potentially life-saving programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne C Melzer
- Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
| | - Megan E Campbell
- Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Hildi J Hagedorn
- Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Steve S Fu
- Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Or Unger Freinkel K, Yehoshua I, Cohen B, Peleg R, Adler L. Attitudes and knowledge about weight management among primary care physicians in Israel: a cross-sectional study. BMC PRIMARY CARE 2024; 25:92. [PMID: 38504167 PMCID: PMC10949690 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02324-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2023] [Accepted: 02/27/2024] [Indexed: 03/21/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prevalence of obesity has been increasing worldwide and is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Weight management can reduce the risk of complications and improve the quality of life of patients with obesity. This study explored primary care physicians' (PCPs') attitudes and knowledge about weight management. METHODS An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 400 PCPs between 2020 and 2021. The survey included questions on treatment approaches (pharmaceutical and surgical) and items regarding the respondents' demographic characteristics. We compared PCPs with low or high proactivity toward weight management. We explored attitudes and knowledge with the chi-square test for categorical variables or the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. RESULTS A total of 145 PCPs answered our survey (a response rate of 36.25%). More than half (53.8%) of the respondents showed low proactivity toward weight management in their practice. Proactive respondents were more likely to believe that pharmaceutical treatment effectively reduces weight and offered medical and surgical treatment options more frequently to their patients. Lack of knowledge was the most predominant reason for PCPs avoiding offering treatment to their patients, especially in less proactive PCPs (33.3% vs. 5.3%, p-value < 0.001). When comparing different pharmaceutical options, 46.6% of PCPs report they tend to prescribe liraglutide to their patients compared with only 11% who prescribe orlistat and 10.3% who prescribe phentermine (p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Many PCPs still do not actively provide obesity treatment despite improved awareness and therapeutic options. PCPs' proactivity and attitudes are vital to this effort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ilan Yehoshua
- Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
- Department of Family Medicine, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv University, Hamered 27 St., Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Bar Cohen
- Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
| | - Roni Peleg
- Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
| | - Limor Adler
- Department of Family Medicine, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv University, Hamered 27 St., Tel Aviv, Israel.
- Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ostroff JS, Reilly EM, Burris JL, Warren GW, Shelton RC, Mullett TW. 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. JCO Oncol Pract 2024; 20:212-219. [PMID: 37967292 PMCID: PMC10911542 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Revised: 08/15/2023] [Accepted: 09/27/2023] [Indexed: 11/17/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie S. Ostroff
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Jessica L. Burris
- Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Graham W. Warren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC
| | - Rachel C. Shelton
- Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY
| | - Timothy W. Mullett
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Taylor KL, Webster MA, Philips JG, Whealan JM, Lobo T, Davis KM, Breece CJ, Wheeley JR, Childs JE, Le AQ, Williams RM, Veytsman IG, Kim C. Integrating Tobacco Use Assessment and Treatment in the Oncology Setting: Quality Improvement Results from the Georgetown Lombardi Smoking Treatment and Recovery Program. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:3755-3775. [PMID: 37185398 PMCID: PMC10136485 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30040285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2023] [Revised: 03/07/2023] [Accepted: 03/24/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
As part of the NCI’s Cancer Center Cessation (C3i) initiative, we initiated, expanded, and maintained an evidence-based tobacco treatment program at the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. We present a quality improvement (QI) assessment of the implementation process and patient-level outcomes. At two hematology/oncology outpatient clinical sites, five oncology-based teams (clinical administrators, clinical staff, pharmacy, information technology, and tobacco treatment staff) developed implementation strategies for opt-out patient assessment and enrollment, centralized tobacco treatment, audit, feedback, and staff training. Among eligible patients (tobacco use in ≤30 days), we assessed demographic, clinical, and tobacco-related characteristics to examine predictors of enrollment (baseline completed), treatment engagement (≥one sessions completed), and self-reported 7-day abstinence (6 months post-enrollment). Across both sites, medical assistants screened 19,344 (82.4%) patients for tobacco use, which identified 1345 (7.0%) current tobacco users, in addition to 213 clinician referrals. Of the 687/1256 (54.7%) eligible patients reached, 301 (43.8%) enrolled, and 199 (29.0%) engaged in treatment, of whom 74.5% were African American and 68% were female. At the larger site, significant multivariate predictors of enrollment included African American race (vs. white/other) and clinician referral (vs. MA assessment). Treatment engagement was predicted by greater nicotine dependence, and abstinence (27.4%) was predicted by greater treatment engagement. In summary, the systematic utilization of multiple oncology-based teams and implementation strategies resulted in the development and maintenance of a high-quality, population-based approach to tobacco treatment. Importantly, these strategies addressed inequities in tobacco treatment, as the program reached and engaged a majority-African-American patient population. Finally, the opt-out patient assessment strategy has been implemented in multiple oncology settings at MedStar Health through the Commission on Cancer’s Just Ask program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn L Taylor
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Marguerite A Webster
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Joanna G Philips
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Julia M Whealan
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Tania Lobo
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Kimberly M Davis
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, Georgetown University Hospital, MedStar Health, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Chavalia J Breece
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA
- Department of Medical Oncology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Jennifer R Wheeley
- Department of Medical Oncology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC 20010, USA
| | - Jack E Childs
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Ariel Q Le
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Randi M Williams
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Irina G Veytsman
- Department of Medical Oncology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC 20010, USA
| | - Chul Kim
- Department of Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Shelley D, Wang VHC, Taylor K, Williams R, Toll B, Rojewski A, Foley KL, Rigotti N, Ostroff JS. Accelerating integration of tobacco use treatment in the context of lung cancer screening: Relevance and application of implementation science to achieving policy and practice. Transl Behav Med 2022; 12:1076-1083. [PMID: 36227937 PMCID: PMC9677484 DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibac076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Based on the findings from the National Lung Screening Trial, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) among high-risk adults. Approximately 54% of individuals seeking LCS report current cigarette smoking. Effective smoking cessation interventions, offered at the time of LCS, enhances the health benefits of screening that are attributable to reductions in lung cancer overall and tobacco-related mortality. Considering these data, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) 2015 decision to cover LCS with LDCT required that radiology imaging facilities make tobacco cessation interventions available for people who smoke. In February 2022, CMS reversed their 2015 coverage requirement for delivering tobacco use treatment at the time of LDCT; CMS retained the requirement for counseling during the shared decision-making visit prior to the exam. The policy change does not diminish the importance of offering high-quality tobacco cessation services in conjunction with routine LDCT for LCS. However, LCS programs face a range of barriers to implementing tobacco use treatment in their settings. As a result, implementation has lagged. Closing the "evidence to practice" gap is the focus of implementation science, a field that offers a set of rigorous methods and a systematic approach to identifying and overcoming contextual barriers to implementing evidence-based guidelines in a range of clinical settings. In this paper, we describe how implementation science frameworks and methods can be used to help guide LCS programs in their efforts to integrate tobacco use treatment and discuss policy changes needed to further facilitate the delivery of TUT as an essential component of the LCS process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Benjamin Toll
- Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Alana Rojewski
- Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Kristie L Foley
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|