Oncologist provision of smoking cessation support: A national survey of Australian medical and radiation oncologists

Improving referral rates for smoking cessation: A multifaceted intervention aimed at radiation oncologists

Objective

Continuation of smoking after a cancer diagnosis increases the burdensome side effects from cancer treatment, and decreases the chances of cure. Smoking cessation may improve oncological outcomes in cancer patients. This study aims to evaluate if radiation oncologists can be motivated by a smoking cessation awareness intervention to discuss smoking status more frequently and increase the referral rate for smoking cessation-support.Study design and Setting:A multifaceted approach was used to improve awareness: First, current practice was evaluated by a retrospective chart review of 282 patients referred for radiotherapy to ascertain smoking status, discussion of smoking cessation support and referral rates. Secondly, radiation oncologists were interviewed about their motives and barriers to discuss smoking status and smoking cessation support. The results were fed back in a teaching lecture to the doctors involved. Finally, the effect of this smoking cessation awareness intervention was prospectively evaluated in 100 patients.

Results

After the smoking cessation awareness intervention, smoking cessation was more frequently discussed compared to baseline (77% (10/13)) and 39.5% (17/43) respectively. The referral rate for smoking cessation increased from 2.3% (1/43) to 69.2% (9/13).

Conclusion

Without an active smoking prevention awareness policy, referral for smoking cessation support for cancer patients by radiation oncologists is low. A relatively short and simple smoking awareness intervention for radiation oncologist may result in a more frequent discussion with patients about smoking cessation and an even larger increase in referrals for smoking cessation support.

[Effect of Smoking on Cancer Surgery Outcomes and Recommendations for Perioperative Smoking Cessation Intervention]

Smoking, a common behavior that causes health risks among adults around the world, is closely associated with the risks of developing various kinds of cancers. Nevertheless, the impact of smoking on preoperative risks and postoperative outcomes of cancer surgeries has been largely overlooked. Extensive basic medical and clinical research findings and prognosis data demonstrate that smoking is associated with increased risks of multiple perioperative complications, and that smoking affects the general prognosis of patients. Smoking cessation during the preoperative and perioperative periods effectively reduces these risks and improves the long-term postoperative outcomes of cancer patients. At present, health workers and patients are not giving adequate attention to smoking cessation interventions and the quality of interventions available is poor. Herein, we discussed the necessity of comprehensive and standardized smoking cessation services and made recommendations regarding the implementation of comprehensive and standardized smoking cessation services, providing support for cancer patients to access evidence-based care during the perioperative period.

Cancer care clinicians' provision of smoking cessation support: A mixed methods study in New South Wales, Australia

OBJECTIVES

Given the importance of supporting cancer patients to quit smoking, we sought to ascertain cancer care clinicians' beliefs and practices regarding providing smoking cessation brief interventions.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional sequential explanatory mixed method design, including a survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians and semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-five cancer care clinicians completed the survey and 21 participated in interviews. Over half of survey respondents (53%) said they do not regularly undertake smoking cessation brief interventions and 40% rarely or never advise quitting. Nonmetropolitan clinicians were more likely to discuss medication options and refer to the Quitline. Physicians were more likely to do brief interventions with patients and radiation therapists were least likely. Barriers were lack of training and experience, lack of knowledge of the Quitline referral process, lack of role clarity, lack of resources and systems, and perceived psychological ramifications of cancer for patients.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to upskill cancer clinicians and improve systems to provide smoking cessation brief interventions as part of routine clinical practice. All cancer care clinicians should complete brief intervention smoking cessation training relevant to the cancer context, including making referrals to Quitline, and be supported by systems to record and follow-up care.

Building staff capability, opportunity, and motivation to provide smoking cessation to people with cancer in Australian cancer treatment centres: development of an implementation intervention framework for the Care to Quit cluster randomised controlled trial

Few rigorous studies provide a clear description of the methodological approach of developing an evidence-based implementation intervention, prior to implementation at scale. This study describes the development, mapping, rating, and review of the implementation strategies for the Care to Quit smoking cessation trial, prior to application in nine cancer services across Australia. Key stakeholders were engaged in the process from conception through to rating, reviewing and refinement of strategies and principles. An initial scoping review identified 21 barriers to provision of evidence-based smoking cessation care to patients with cancer, which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify relevant intervention functions. The mapping identified 26 relevant behaviour change techniques, summarised into 11 implementation strategies. The implementation strategies were rated and reviewed against the BCW Affordability, Practicality, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, and Equity criteria by key stakeholders during two interactive workshops to facilitate a focus on feasible interventions likely to resonate with clinical staff. The implementation strategies and associated intervention tools were then collated by form and function to provide a practical guide for implementing the intervention. This study illustrates the rigorous use of theories and frameworks to arrive at a practical intervention guide, with potential to inform future replication and scalability of evidence-based implementation across a range of health service settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10742-022-00288-6.

The Tobacco Endgame—A New Paradigm for Smoking Cessation in Cancer Clinics

Smoking cessation represents an untapped resource for cancer therapy. Many people who smoke and have cancer (tobacco-related or otherwise) struggle to quit and as a result, jeopardise response to treatment, recovery after surgery and long-term survival. Many health care practitioners working in cancer medicine feel undertrained, unprepared and unsupported to provide effective smoking cessation therapy. Many institutions and healthcare systems do provide smoking cessation programs, guidelines and referral pathways for cancer patients, but these may be unevenly applied. The growing body of evidence, from both retrospective and prospective clinical studies, confirms the benefit of smoking cessation and will provide much needed evidence for the best and most effective interventions in cancer clinics. In addition to reducing demand, helping cancer patients quit and treating addiction, a firm commitment to developing smoke free societies may transform cancer medicine in the future. While the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) has dominated global tobacco control for the last two decades, many jurisdictions are starting to develop plans to make their communities tobacco free, to introduce the tobacco endgame. Characterised by downward pressure on tobacco supply, limited sales, limited access and denormalization of smoking, these policies may radically change the milieu in which people with cancer receive treatment, in which health care practitioners refine skills and which may ultimately foster dramatic improvements in cancer outcomes.

Smoking habits, awareness and support needs for cessation among people with multiple sclerosis in Australia: findings from an online survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess smoking habits, nicotine use, exposure to passive smoking, awareness of associated harms, and experiences with and preferences for smoking cessation support among people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

DESIGN

Online survey, convenience sampling.

SETTING

Community setting, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults living in Australia with probable or diagnosed MS were recruited via social media and newsletters to participate in 2020.

RESULTS

Of the 284 participants in our convenience sample, 25.7% were current smokers (n=73) and 38.0% were former smokers (n=108). Awareness of the harms of smoking on MS onset (n=68, 24.3%) and progression (n=116, 41.6%) was low. Almost a quarter (n=67, 23.8%) of participants were regularly exposed to passive smoke, and awareness of associated harm was also low (n=47, 16.8%). Among current smokers, 76.1% (n=54) had tried quitting and 73.2% considered quitting within 6 months (n=52). Many participants reported perceived short-term benefits of smoking, and long-term benefits of quitting, on MS symptoms and general well-being (short-term n=28, 40.0%; long-term n=28, 82.4%). While most participants reported that their neurologist (n=126, 75.4%) or other healthcare providers (n=125, 74.9%) had assessed smoking status, very few neurologists (n=3, 1.8%) or other healthcare providers (n=14, 8.4%) had provided help with quitting. Most current smokers preferred speaking about smoking to a neurologist (n=36, 52.2%) or general practitioner (n=41, 59.4%). Almost 60% of the current smokers wanted additional cessation information specific to MS (n=41, 59.4%), and 45.5% said this information would motivate them to quit smoking (n=30).

CONCLUSIONS

Our convenience sample, which may not be representative, indicated an urgent need for regular evidence-based smoking cessation supports for people with MS. Most participants felt they would benefit from smoking cessation advice. MS clinicians, in collaboration with patient organisations, smoking cessation services and general practitioners, should make smoking cessation promotion with people with MS a priority.

Country profile: Australia, New South Wales. From validation to implementation: Progressing tobacco smoking cessation among people with cancer and beyond via relevant authorities

This paper delineates how a program of tobacco smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis was achieved by engagement of multiple stakeholders, government, and non-government authorities in one jurisdiction in Australia, New South Wales. While it had become increasingly obvious that smoking cessation imparts benefits akin to other known treatment modalities, knowledge of this generalisation is without benefit unless this information is delivered in a trusted context and means to quit are made available. Against a backdrop of little enthusiasm among clinicians, the Cancer Institute NSW, charged with implementing tobacco control strategies, decided to focus its 2017 annual colloquium on the topic. While the evidence was unequivocal, better clarity was needed that this was indeed a clinical responsibility, and on the resources needed. The Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, (COSA) a non-governmental peak national body representing cancer care professionals, addressed this challenge. The society's governing body resolved to develop a position statement indicating how smoking cessation might be integrated within hospital-based cancer care. The position statement, endorsed by nineteen other cancer and non-cancer organisations, provided reassurance to the Institute to improve record capture of hospital smoking information; upskill all clinical staff and develop an automatic "patient opt out" referral to existing resources such as the Quitline. Early pilot work shows that people newly diagnosed with cancer who smoke and who were advised at that time to quit increased from 55% in 2016 to 72% in 2019.

Implementation and evaluation of a smoking cessation checklist implemented within Australian cancer services

Introduction

The detrimental impact of smoking tobacco can be mitigated when cancer patients quit smoking. Smoking cessation clinical pathways are inconsistently implemented within Australian cancer services. The aim of this study was to pilot test and evaluate the reach, adoption, and implementation of a smoking cessation checklist within oncology services.

Methods

The checklist was implemented over a 6‐month period in medical and radiation oncology services at two metropolitan and one rural hospital. The RE‐AIM framework guided the evaluation process. Implementation strategies included training, process mapping, and identifying champions. Evaluation measures included a clinical data audit, surveys, and semi‐structured interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs).

Results

Healthcare professionals (HCPs; N = 63; 41% oncologists, 32% nurses, 27% others) completed 1276 checklists with cancer patients between November 2019 and December 2020. Of the 126 (10%) identified current smokers, 34 (27%) accepted a referral to either Quitline, Nicotine Replacement Therapy, to a general practitioner or dedicated HCP for follow‐up telephone support. There was variation in screening adoption by HCPs across the three hospitals, with 16%, 92% and 89.5% of patients screened respectively. Contextual factors, such as perceived commitment, role identity, and communication processes appeared to influence the outcomes.

Conclusion

A checklist is a simple, effective, and versatile intervention used to standardise smoking cessation practices in medical and radiation oncology services. The checklist supports standardisation of referral practices to smoking cessation services for cancer patients by either oncologist and/or nurses.

Improving smoking cessation support for people with multiple sclerosis: A qualitative analysis of clinicians' views and current practice

Introduction Smoking is a key modifiable risk factor in multiple sclerosis (MS). MS healthcare providers have a central role informing people of the deleterious effects of smoking on MS progression and promote smoking cessation, yet there is limited information about smoking cessation and support provided by these providers. This study aimed to gain an understanding of MS healthcare providers current practices, barriers and facilitators related to providing smoking cessation support for people with MS. Methods A total of 13 MS nurses and 6 neurologists working in public and private MS clinics across Australia were recruited through professional networks and MS organisations. Telephone interviews were conducted, transcribed and evaluated using framework analysis. Results MS nurses and neurologists reported that they routinely assess smoking status of people with MS at initial appointments and less regularly also at follow-up appointments. Clinicians considered it important to provide information about smoking impact on MS health outcomes and advise to cease smoking, but the content and delivery varies. Beyond this, some clinicians offer referral for smoking cessation support, while others stated this was not their responsibility, especially in light of competing priorities. Many were unsure about referral pathways and options, requiring more information, training and resources. Conclusion Results of this research indicate that there is potential to improve support for MS clinicians to promote smoking cessation among people with MS. Smoking cessation support may include tailored patient resources, clinician training and stronger collaboration with smoking cessation service providers.

Hospital staff perspectives on the provision of smoking cessation care: a qualitative description study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of hospital staff regarding the provision of smoking cessation care.

STUDY DESIGN

A qualitative description study using focus group discussions.

STUDY SETTING

Data were collected across metropolitan regional and rural hospitals in Victoria, Australia, between November and December 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinical and non-clinical hospital staff.

RESULTS

Five focus groups were conducted across four hospitals. Staff (n=38) across metropolitan regional and rural hospitals shared similar views with regards to barriers and facilitators of smoking cessation care. Four themes were present: (1) Clinical Setting wherein views about opportunity and capacity to embed smoking cessation care, relevant policies and procedures and guidelines were discussed; (2) Knowledge consisted of the need for training on the provision of pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions, and awareness of resources; (3) Consistency represented the need for a consistently applied approach to smoking cessation care by all staff and included issues of staff smoking; and (4) Appropriateness consisted of questions around how smoking cessation care can be safely delivered in the context of challenging patient groups and different settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff across metropolitan regional and rural hospitals experience similar views and identified shared barriers in implementing smoking cessation care. Responding to staff concerns and providing support to address smoking with patients will help to foster a consistent approach to cessation care. Clear practice guidelines for multidisciplinary clinical roles need to underpin staff training in communication skills, include priorities around smoking cessation care, and provide the authorising environment in which clinical staff actively provide smoking cessation care.

Care to Quit: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to implement best practice smoking cessation care in cancer centres

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking in people with cancer is associated with negative treatment-related outcomes including increased treatment toxicity and complications, medication side effects, decreased performance status and morbidity. Evidence-based smoking cessation care is not routinely provided to patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a smoking cessation implementation intervention on abstinence from smoking in people diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

A stepped wedge cluster randomised design will be used. All sites begin in the control condition providing treatment as usual. In a randomly generated order, sites will move to the intervention condition. Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, implementation of Care to Quit will include (i) building the capability and motivation of a critical mass of key clinical staff and identifying champions; and (ii) identifying and implementing cessation care models/pathways. Two thousand one hundred sixty patients with cancer (diagnosed in the prior six months), aged 18+, who report recent combustible tobacco use (past 90 days or in the 30 days prior to cancer diagnosis) and are accessing anti-cancer therapy, will be recruited at nine sites. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 7-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be 6-month abstinence from smoking. Secondary outcomes include biochemical verification of abstinence from smoking, duration of quit attempts, tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, provision and receipt of smoking cessation care, mental health and quality of life and cost effectiveness of the intervention.

DISCUSSION

This study will implement best practice smoking cessation care in cancer centres and has the potential for wide dissemination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN ( ACTRN12621000154808 ) prior to the accrual of the first participant and will be updated regularly as per registry guidelines.

Discussions About Lifestyle Risk Factors Following a Cancer Diagnosis: Findings from a Sample of Australian Cancer Outpatients

Individuals with a previous cancer diagnosis are at risk of cancer recurrence. However, many cancer survivors do not adhere to lifestyle recommendations to reduce cancer risk. Little is known about the extent to which cancer patients are asked about lifestyle risk factors by healthcare providers following diagnosis. The aim of this study is to determine among Australian cancer survivors the (1) proportion asked about smoking, alcohol consumption, nutrition and physical activity; (2) total number of lifestyle risk factors asked about; and (3) factors associated with being asked about fewer risk factors. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with cancer patients attending outpatient clinics. Eligible patients completed a baseline survey and a second survey 4 weeks later. Data about demographic and disease characteristics, and whether participants had been asked about smoking, alcohol, physical activity and diet since being diagnosed with cancer, was collected. A total of 144 patients were included in the analyses. Following diagnosis, most had been asked about smoking (86%), alcohol consumption (85%), physical activity (80%) and diet (69%) by a healthcare provider. Sixty-one percent of participants reported being asked about all four risk factors; only 6% recalled being asked about none. After controlling for age, participants with a high school or lower education were more likely to be asked about fewer risk factors (OR 2.16; 95%CI 1.0 to 4.6; p = 0.04) compared with those with a trade, vocational or university-level education. Just over one-third of a sample of Australian cancer patients were not asked about all assessed lifestyle risk factors following their diagnosis of cancer. These findings suggest there is scope to improve identification of lifestyle risk factors among cancer survivors.

Leveraging Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement via the Electronic Health Record to Connect Patients with Cancer to Smoking Cessation Treatment

Tobacco use negatively impacts cancer treatment outcomes, yet too few providers actively support their patients in quitting. Barriers to consistently addressing tobacco use and referring to treatment include time constraints and lack of knowledge surrounding treatment options. Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) measurement is best practice in cancer care and has potential to help address these barriers to tobacco cessation treatment. This descriptive program evaluation study reports preliminary results following implementation of a novel automated PRO tobacco use screener and referral system via the electronic health record (EHR) patient portal (MyChart) that was developed and implemented as a part of a population-based tobacco treatment program at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University. Between 25 June 2019 and 6 April 2020, 4589 unique patients completed the screener and 164 (3.6%) unique patients screened positive for recent (past month) cigarette smoking. All patients who screened positive were automatically referred to a smoking cessation treatment program integrated within the Lurie Cancer Center, and 71 (49.7%) patients engaged in treatment, as defined by completing at least one behavioral counseling session. Preliminary results indicate that the PRO/MyChart system may improve smoker identification and increase offering of treatment and, despite the "cold call" following a positive screen, may result in a treatment engagement rate that is higher than rates of treatment engagement previously documented in oncology settings. Longer term evaluation with formal statistical testing is needed before drawing conclusions regarding effectiveness, but PRO measurement via the EHR patient portal may serve a potentially important role in a multi-component approach to reaching and engaging cancer patients in comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment.

Exploring Tobacco Use and Smoking Cessation Best Practices From the Perspectives of Individuals With Lung Cancer and Health Care Professionals

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer patients who continue to smoke after diagnosis are at increased risk of treatment toxicity, residual/recurrent disease, future malignancies, and all-cause mortality. Guidelines including those from National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Cancer Care Ontario advocate for screening, counseling, and access to smoking cessation services for all cancer patients; however, barriers from both patient and health care professional (HCP) perspectives contribute to lack of implementation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify the different perspectives among patients and HCPs in how the promotion of person-centred approaches may be used when offering smoking cessation services to patients who are receiving care within a regional cancer centre.

METHODS

Qualitative data were generated using various methods, including focus groups with HCPs and interviews with patients. In total, 16 HCPs participated in three focus groups: including nine radiation therapists, five registered nurses, one registered dietitian, and one physiotherapist. Of 55 patients accrued, 19 were interviewed. Both focus groups and interviews were audio recorded, and the recordings were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were then analyzed using narrative thematic analysis to define and identify themes.

RESULTS

The identified themes were categorized into three topic areas: knowledge (eg, impact of smoking on illness and why they should not smoke); individual decision to quit (eg, motivators), and the social unacceptability of smoking (eg, the public perception of smoking over the last 40 years). HCP-identified themes included identification of smokers, triggers to start a conversation, approach, gaps and barriers to cessation, rationale for cessation, and judgment. Patient-identified themes included knowledge, individual decision to quit, and the social unacceptability of smoking.

CONCLUSION

Understanding patient and HCP perspectives on smoking cessation will help influence practice to ensure that patients are not judged, assumptions are not made, and individualized and person-centred care is provided. HCP awareness of these themes and the patient perspective may challenge assumptions and values.