Search

Background: More radon-related lung cancers occur among those exposed to tobacco smoke. Objectives: To test the effects of a personalized environmental report back intervention on change in stage of action for air nicotine testing and adopting a smoke-free home and radon testing and mitigation from baseline to 3 months postintervention. Methods: The study design used a two-arm parallel groups randomized controlled trial with stratified quota sampling. The treatment group received free air nicotine and radon home test kits and a brief problem-solving phone intervention; the control group received a coupon for free test kits. A sample of 515 homeowners were enrolled; 319 completed the 3-month follow-up. Stage of action to test and remediate the home was measured consistent with the precaution adoption process model. Linear mixed modeling assessed whether the main and interaction effects of treatment and time were associated with the testing and remediation outcomes; multiple covariates were included in the models. Results: The models for the four stages of action outcomes (testing and remediating for radon and secondhand smoke) each had a significant treatment-by-time effect. The general pattern was an increase in stage of action from baseline to 3 months. The degree of change was generally larger among the treatment group participants relative to the controls, indicating that those in the treatment group were more ready to take action. For all the models, participants with higher self-efficacy for radon/air nicotine testing and radon/secondhand smoke remediation were more ready to take action to test and remediate. Synergistic risk perception was associated with stage of action for radon mitigation. Conclusions: Homeowners who were provided free radon and air nicotine test kits, given their results, and engaged in a brief telephonic problem-solving consultation tended to show a greater increase in readiness to take action to test and remediate by 3 months compared with those who received standard public health practice. Both groups showed an increase in stage of action for all four outcomes over time.

Objective: Observational data suggest hope is associated with the quality of life and survival of people with cancer. This trial examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes of "Pathways," a hope intervention for people in treatment for advanced lung cancer. Methods: Between 2020 and 2022, we conducted a single‐arm trial of Pathways among participants who were 3–12 weeks into systemic treatment. Pathways consisted of two individual sessions delivered during infusions and three phone calls in which participants discussed their values, goals, and goal strategies with a nurse or occupational therapist. Participants completed standardized measures of hope and goal interference pre‐ and post‐intervention. Feasibility was defined as ≥60% of eligible patients enrolling, ≥70% of participants completing three or more sessions, ≥70% of participants completing post‐assessments, and mean acceptability ratings ≥7 out of 10 on intervention relevance, helpfulness, and convenience. Linear regression fixed effects models with covariates modeled pre–post changes in complete case analysis and multiple imputation models. Results: Fifty two participants enrolled: female (59.6%), non‐Hispanic White (84.6%), rural (75.0%), and with low educational attainment (51.9% high school degree or less). Except for enrollment (54%), feasibility and acceptability markers were surpassed (77% adherence, 77% retention, acceptability ratings ≥8/10). There was moderate improvement in hope and goal interference from pre‐to post‐intervention (d = 0.51, p < 0.05 for hope; d = −0.70, p < 0.005 for goal interference). Conclusions: Strong feasibility, acceptability, and patient‐reported outcome data suggest Pathways is a promising intervention to increase hope and reduce cancer‐related goal interference during advanced lung cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Author(s): Sarah McQueary Flynn [sup.1] , Tory A. Eisenlohr-Moul [sup.2] , Suzanne C. Segerstrom [sup.3 ] , Christen T. Logue [sup.1] , Jamie L. Studts [sup.3] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.441548.8, [...]

Introduction: This intensive longitudinal study describes key events in the process of smoking cessation after a new head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis. Prior longitudinal studies show some cancer patients quit, while others continue to smoke, but details about the pattern in which these discrete outcomes arise are scarce. This study is meant to help rectify this gap in the literature.Aims and Methods: Participants were 42 HNC patients who reported current smoking at enrollment. Participants were recruited from an outpatient oncology clinic and completed a baseline questionnaire prior to begin a 30-day daily assessment.Results: Few participants (9.52%) achieved 30-day continuous abstinence from smoking. On average, participants reported 9.64 ± 11.93 total days of abstinence. Nearly, all (94.44%, n = 34) participants made at least one quit attempt, with an average of 16.94 ± 11.30 quit attempt days. Fewer participants were able to achieve a 24-hour quit attempt (52.78%, n = 19), with a corresponding average of 5.50 ± 8.69 24-hour days. The median time to first 24-hour quit attempt was 13 days after enrollment. Based on smoking behavioral patterns, participants were categorized into five groups, the most common being "persistent attempters," which involved unsuccessful quit attempts throughout the study. Only 45% of participants (n = 19) used evidence-based treatment, the most common being cessation medication.Conclusions: This intensive longitudinal study found that cancer diagnosis can spur a lot of efforts to quit smoking. Unfortunately, this study suggests that many quit attempts are short lived, possibly a result of an absence or insufficient use of evidence-based treatments.Implications: For adults who are current smokers at the time of cancer diagnosis, there is a high likelihood of persistent cigarette smoking and use of other tobacco products in the weeks and months after a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, this study shows that while a lot of quit attempts may occur, few are successful, which may be partly attributable to the low use of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Future research with cancer patients should aim to identify predictors of quit attempts and abstinence as well as treatment utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]