Search

Although the harmful effects of smoking after a cancer diagnosis have been clearly demonstrated, many patients continue to smoke cigarettes during treatment and beyond. The NCCN Guidelines for Smoking Cessation emphasize the importance of smoking cessation in all patients with cancer and seek to establish evidence-based recommendations tailored to the unique needs and concerns of patients with cancer. The recommendations contained herein describe interventions for cessation of all combustible tobacco products (eg, cigarettes, cigars, hookah), including smokeless tobacco products. However, recommendations are based on studies of cigarette smoking. The NCCN Smoking Cessation Panel recommends that treatment plans for all patients with cancer who smoke include the following 3 tenets that should be done concurrently: (1) evidence-based motivational strategies and behavior therapy (counseling), which can be brief; (2) evidence-based pharmacotherapy; and (3) close follow-up with retreatment as needed.

The NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening recommend criteria for selecting individuals for screening and provide recommendations for evaluation and follow-up of lung nodules found during initial and subsequent screening. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening.

Introduction: Key stakeholders need to be involved in the identification of feasible and impactful implementation strategies for evidence-based interventions. While a wide range of implementation strategies has been developed, there is little research on their applicability when addressing different cancer prevention and control (CPC) efforts in primary care.Methods: With an emphasis on rural practices, we conducted a survey of primary care physicians to identify implementation strategies they perceive as most feasible and impactful. The survey included both primary prevention behavior change counseling and cancer screening issues. Analyses contrasted ratings of feasibility and impact across these activities and nine implementation strategies, and among clinicians in different settings with a focus on comparisons between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural settings.Results: We had 326 respondents from a wide range of practice types, representing four different practice-based research networks, 49 states, and including 177 clinicians in rural settings. Ratings of impact were somewhat higher than those for feasibility. Few of the nine implementation strategies were high on both impact and feasibility. Only ‘adapting to my practice’ was rated higher than a 4 (“moderate”) on both impact and feasibility. There were relatively few differences between rural and non-rural clinicians or associated with other clinician or setting characteristics.Conclusions: There is considerable variability in perceived impact and feasibility of implementation strategies for CPC activities among primary care clinicians. It is important to assess both feasibility and impact of implementation strategies as well as their generalizability across settings. Our results suggest that optimal strategies to implement evidence-based CPC activities will likely need to be developed or adapted for primary care settings. Future research is needed to replicate these findings with different settings and interventions, and identify practical, stakeholder informed implementation strategies.

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.

The number of lung cancer survivors is increasing along with advances in screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Following curative intent therapy, many lung cancer survivors experience significant health-related quality of life (HRQL) impairments. We sought to identify potentially modifiable factors that contribute to the HRQL of these patients.In this cross-sectional observational study of disease-free, stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors following curative intent therapy, we used a conceptual model to examine factors that included behavioral, objective functional and physiologic, self-rated function and symptom burden, specific comorbidities, and non-modifiable demographic and clinical lung cancer-related characteristics. We assessed HRQL using the valid and prognostic European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (QoL) Core 30 global health/QoL subscale. We used univariable and multivariable linear regression modeling with backward elimination of potentially modifiable and non-modifiable factors, and interpreted clinically and statistically significant, consistent, and independent modifiable factors as meaningful.Among 75 participants at a median of 12 months since treatment completion, the mean (standard deviation) C30 global health/QoL score was 62.7 (23.3) points (0-100 scale range). In multivariable analysis, with and without non-modifiable factors, we identified three clinically and statistically significant, consistent, and independent factors (unstandardized β range) associated with global health/QoL: 1) abnormal exercise-induced dyspnea (-9.23 to -10.0 points); 2) impaired self-rated role function (or inability to perform work or daily activities and pursuing leisure-time activities) (-12.6 to -16.4 points); and 3) abnormal insomnia (or trouble sleeping) (-12.6 to -16.4 points).We identified meaningful modifiable factors associated with the HRQL of disease-free, stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors following curative intent therapy. Interventions to improve the HRQL of these patients should aim to reduce exercise-induced dyspnea, improve role function - the ability to perform work and other daily including leisure-time activities, and control insomnia.

BACKGROUND Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with the majority of lung cancer occurrence diagnosed after the disease has already metastasized. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography can diagnose early-stage disease, especially when eligible individuals participate in screening on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, annual adherence has emerged as a challenge for academic and community screening programs, endangering the individual and population health benefits of LCS. Reminder messages have effectively increased adherence rates in breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screenings but have not been tested with LCS participants who experience unique barriers to screening associated with the stigma of smoking and social determinants of health. OBJECTIVE This research aims to use a theory-informed, multiphase, and mixed methods approach with LCS experts and participants to develop a set of clear and engaging reminder messages to support LCS annual adherence. METHODS In aim 1, survey data informed by the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing model will be collected to assess how LCS participants process health information aimed at health protective behavior to develop content for reminder messages and pinpoint options for message targeting and tailoring. Aim 2 focuses on identifying themes for message imagery through a modified photovoice activity that asks participants to identify 3 images that represent LCS and then participate in an interview about the selection, likes, and dislikes of each photo. A pool of candidate messages for multiple delivery platforms will be developed in aim 3, using results from aim 1 for message content and aim 2 for imagery selection. The refinement of message content and imagery combinations will be completed through iterative feedback from LCS experts and participants. RESULTS Data collection began in July 2022 and will be completed by May 2023. The final reminder message candidates are expected to be completed by June 2023. CONCLUSIONS This project proposes a novel approach to facilitate adherence to annual LCS through the development of reminder messages that embrace content and imagery representative of the target population directly in the design process. Developing effective strategies to increase LCS adherence is instrumental in achieving optimal LCS outcomes at individual and population health levels. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/46657

Objective Lung cancer screening (LCS) efficacy is highly dependent on adherence to annual screening, but little is known about real-world adherence determinants. We used insurance claims data to examine associations between LCS annual adherence and demographic, comorbidity, health care usage, and geographic factors. Materials and Methods Insurance claims data for all individuals with an LCS low-dose CT scan were obtained from the Colorado All Payer Claims Dataset. Adherence was defined as a second claim for a screening CT 10 to 18 months after the index claim. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to define the relationship between annual adherence and age, gender, insurance type, residence location, outpatient health care usage, and comorbidity burden. Results After exclusions, the final data set consisted of 9,056 records with 3,072 adherent, 3,570 nonadherent, and 2,414 censored (unclassifiable) individuals. Less adherence was associated with ages 55 to 59 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67-0.94), 60 to 64 (HR = 0.83, 99% CI = 0.71-0.97), and 75 to 79 (HR = 0.79, 99% CI = 0.65-0.97); rural residence (HR = 0.56, 99% CI = 0.43-0.73); Medicare fee-for-service (HR = 0.45, 99% CI = 0.39-0.51), and Medicaid (HR = 0.50, 99% CI = 0.40-0.62). A significant interaction between outpatient health care usage and comorbidity was also observed. Increased outpatient usage was associated with increased adherence and was most pronounced for individuals without comorbidities. Conclusions This population-based description of LCS adherence determinants provides insight into populations that might benefit from specific interventions targeted toward improving adherence and maximizing LCS benefit. Quantifying population-based adherence rates and understanding factors associated with annual adherence are critical to improving screening adherence and reducing lung cancer death.

Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with the majority of lung cancer occurrence diagnosed after the disease has already metastasized. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography can diagnose early-stage disease, especially when eligible individuals participate in screening on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, annual adherence has emerged as a challenge for academic and community screening programs, endangering the individual and population health benefits of LCS. Reminder messages have effectively increased adherence rates in breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screenings but have not been tested with LCS participants who experience unique barriers to screening associated with the stigma of smoking and social determinants of health. Objective This research aims to use a theory-informed, multiphase, and mixed methods approach with LCS experts and participants to develop a set of clear and engaging reminder messages to support LCS annual adherence. Methods In aim 1, survey data informed by the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing model will be collected to assess how LCS participants process health information aimed at health protective behavior to develop content for reminder messages and pinpoint options for message targeting and tailoring. Aim 2 focuses on identifying themes for message imagery through a modified photovoice activity that asks participants to identify 3 images that represent LCS and then participate in an interview about the selection, likes, and dislikes of each photo. A pool of candidate messages for multiple delivery platforms will be developed in aim 3, using results from aim 1 for message content and aim 2 for imagery selection. The refinement of message content and imagery combinations will be completed through iterative feedback from LCS experts and participants. Results Data collection began in July 2022 and will be completed by May 2023. The final reminder message candidates are expected to be completed by June 2023. Conclusions This project proposes a novel approach to facilitate adherence to annual LCS through the development of reminder messages that embrace content and imagery representative of the target population directly in the design process. Developing effective strategies to increase LCS adherence is instrumental in achieving optimal LCS outcomes at individual and population health levels. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/46657

Cancer risk prediction models such as those published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention are a cornerstone of precision medicine and public health efforts to improve population health outcomes by tailoring preventive strategies and therapeutic treatments to the people who are most likely to benefit. However, there are several barriers to the effective translation, dissemination, and implementation of cancer risk prediction models into clinical and public health practice. In this commentary, we discuss two broad categories of barriers. Specifically, we assert that the successful use of risk-stratified cancer prevention and treatment strategies is particularly unlikely if risk prediction models are translated into risk assessment tools that (i) are difficult for the public to understand or (ii) are not structured in a way to engender the public's confidence that the results are accurate. We explain what aspects of a risk assessment tool's design and content may impede understanding and acceptance by the public. We also describe strategies for translating a cancer risk prediction model into a cancer risk assessment tool that is accessible, meaningful, and useful for the public and in clinical practice.

Purpose Annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screening in high-risk individuals has been recommended to detect lung cancer earlier and reduce mortality. The objective of this study was to identify demographic, financial, and health care factors associated with screening uptake in a population-based survey. Methods Data from the Lung Cancer Screening Module and core modules of the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a population-based survey administered via cell phone and landline, were analyzed to examine demographic, health, and financial factors associated with screening uptake among the 10 states that administered the screening module. Weighted frequencies and confidence intervals (CIs) were produced, and weighted Wald χ2 tests were used to compare differences in screening utilization by patient characteristics. A multivariate logistic mixed-effects model was constructed, in which participant clustering by state was accounted for with a random intercept. Results The uninsured were less likely to undergo LDCT screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.65). LDCT screening uptake was higher for participants with chronic respiratory conditions (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.33-7.35); those who were divorced, separated, widowed, or refused to answer (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.86); those who had previous cancer diagnoses (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.56); and those aged 65 to 69 years (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.44) or 70 to 74 years (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.37). Utilization also varied significantly across states. Conclusions Having a related health condition whereby participants were sensitized to the benefits of early screening (ie, another cancer diagnosis, presence of chronic respiratory conditions) and having insurance coverage were associated with higher LDCT screening uptake. Providers should engage LDCT-eligible patients through informed and shared decision making to increase preference-sensitive screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of clinical trials for improving cancer care, less than 5% of all cancer patients participate. Racial/ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). To address this gap, we developed a plain language, web-based decision support tool (CHOICES DST) in English and Spanish to support decision making about CCTs among Blacks and Hispanics. METHODS: In Phase 1 (information collection), we conducted qualitative interviews with 45 cancer patients, completed a thorough literature review, and reviewed results from a telephone survey of 1100 cancer patients. In Phase 2 (content generation), we created the first iteration of the CHOICES DST. In Phase 3 (usability testing), we gathered user experience and acceptability data from a small sample of cancer survivors (n=9). RESULTS: The Knowledge, Empowerment, and Values Clarification (KEV) Model of decision making was developed based on data from Phase 1. The KEV Model and other Phase 1 data allowed us to create the CHOICES DST platform. Usability testing of the CHOICES DST showed highly favorable responses from users, satisfaction with content, ease of navigation, and a desire to use the tool. Qualitative results identified addressable points that would benefit from content and navigation-related alterations. CONCLUSIONS: The final version of the CHOICES DST was well received and understood by Black and Hispanic participants, and adheres to the mandates for plain language communication. This research provides preliminary data that CHOICES DST holds promise for improving knowledge of CCTs and potentially improving informed decision making about participation in trials.

PURPOSE: Smoking after a cancer diagnosis is linked to cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, among other adverse outcomes. Yet, 10%-20% of US cancer survivors are current smokers. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco treatment in cancer care facilities is widely recommended, yet rarely accomplished. This study focuses on the early outcomes of a population-based tobacco treatment program integrated within an National Cancer Institute–designated cancer center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The sample consists of 26,365 patients seen at the cancer center during the first 18 months of program implementation. The study is a retrospective chart review of patients' tobacco use and, among current users, patients' treatment referral response. RESULTS: More than 99% of patients were screened for tobacco use. Current (past month) use was observed in 21.05% of patients; cigarettes were the most popular product. Only 17.22% of current users accepted a referral for tobacco treatment; among current users who declined, the majority were not ready to quit (65.84%) or wanted to quit on their own (27.01%). Multiple demographic variables were associated with tobacco use and treatment referral response outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite cancer diagnosis presenting a teachable moment for tobacco cessation, patients with cancer may not be ready to quit or engage with treatment. Clinically proven strategies to increase motivation, prompt quit attempts, and encourage treatment use should be key components of tobacco treatment delivery to patients with cancer.

Background Recommended annual diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening for people with diabetes has low rates in the USA, especially in underserved populations. Telemedicine DR screening (TDRS) in primary care clinics could expand access and increase adherence. Despite this potential, studies have observed high variability in TDRS rates among clinics and over time, highlighting the need for implementation supports. Previous studies of determinants of TDRS focus on patients’ perspectives, with few studies targeting upstream multi-level barriers and facilitators. Addressing this gap, this qualitative study aimed to identify and evaluate multi-level perceived determinants of TDRS in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), to inform the development of targeted implementation strategies. Methods We developed a theory-based semi-structured interview tool based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We conducted 22 key informant interviews with professionals involved in TDRS (administrators, clinicians, staff). The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reported barriers and facilitators were organized into emergent themes and classified according to CFIR constructs. Constructs influencing TDRS implementation were rated for each study site and compared across sites by the investigators. Results Professionals identified 21 main barriers and facilitators under twelve constructs of the five CFIR domains. Several identified themes were novel, whereas others corroborated previous findings in the literature (e.g., lack of time and human resources, presence of a champion). Of the 21 identified themes, 13 were classified under the CFIR’s Inner Setting domain, specifically under the constructs Compatibility and Available Resources. Themes under the Outer Setting domain (constructs External Incentives and Cost) were primarily perceived by administrators, whereas themes in other domains were perceived across all professional categories. Two Inner Setting (Leadership Engagement, Goals and Feedback) and two Process (Champion, Engaging) constructs were found to strongly distinguish sites with high versus low TDRS performance. Conclusions This study classified barriers and facilitators to TDRS as perceived by administrators, clinicians, and staff in FQHCs, then identified CFIR constructs that distinguished high- and low-performance clinics. Implementation strategies such as academic detailing and collection and communication of program data and successes to leadership; engaging of stakeholders through involvement in implementation planning; and appointment of intervention champions may therefore improve TDRS implementation and sustainment in resource-constrained settings.

National lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) uptake is suboptimal. One factor contributing to slow uptake is lack of awareness. Trained Community Health Workers (CHWs) may be effective in increasing lung cancer screening awareness among disparate populations, however little is known about the processes necessary to scale an intervention for implementation by CHWs in a new area. We examined implementation processes with the RE-AIM framework and pilot tested a CHW-delivered lung cancer education intervention based on the Health Belief Model. We measured pre-post participant knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding cancer screening, lung cancer stigma, and intent to obtain LDCT screening. We used community-engaged strategies to collaborate with a local health system, to identify CHWs. CHWs were trained to recruit participants and deliver the one-session lung cancer education intervention. Seven CHWs and eight community sites participated. Participants (n = 77) were female (53%) primarily low income (62.9%); tobacco use was high (36.9%). Post intervention changes in lung cancer screening knowledge (p =

Background. Recent data and policy decisions have led to the availability of lung cancer screening (LCS) for individuals who are at increased risk of developing lung cancer. In establishing implementation policies, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required that individuals who meet eligibility criteria for LCS receive a patient counseling and shared decision-making consultation prior to LCS. Methods. This study evaluated the potential of a values clarification/preference elicitation exercise and brief educational intervention to reduce decisional conflict regarding LCS. Participants ( N = 210) completing a larger online survey responded to a measure of decisional conflict prior to and following administration of a conjoint survey and brief educational narrative about LCS. The conjoint survey included 22 choice sets (two of which were holdout cards), incorporating 5 attributes with 17 levels. Results. Results pertaining to changes in decisional conflict showed that participants reported statistically significantly and clinically meaningful reductions in decisional conflict following administration of the brief educational narrative and conjoint survey across the total score (Δ = 29.30; d = 1.09) and all four decisional conflict subscales: Uncertainty (Δ = 27.75; d = 0.73), Informed (Δ = 35.32; d = 1.11), Values Clarity (Δ = 31.82; d = 0.85), and Support (Δ = 18.78; d = 0.66). Discussion. While the study design precludes differentiating the effects of the brief educational narrative and the conjoint survey, data suggest that these tools offer a reasonable approach to clarifying personal beliefs and perspectives regarding LCS participation. Given the complicated nature of LCS decisions and recent policies advocating informed and shared decision-making approaches, conjoint surveys should be evaluated as one of the tools that could help individuals make choices about LCS participation.

Background Smoking after a cancer diagnosis negatively impacts health outcomes; smoking cessation improves symptoms, side effects, and overall prognosis. The Public Health Service and major oncology organizations have established guidelines for tobacco use treatment among cancer patients, including clinician assessment of tobacco use at each visit. Oncology care clinicians (OCCs) play important roles in this process (noted as the 5As: Asking about tobacco use, Advising users to quit, Assessing willingness to quit, Assisting in quit attempts, and Arranging follow-up contact). However, OCCs may not be using the “teachable moments” related to cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship to provide cessation interventions. Materials and Methods In this scoping literature review of articles from 2006 to 2017, we discuss (1) frequency and quality of OCCs' tobacco use assessments with cancer patients and survivors; (2) barriers to providing tobacco treatment for cancer patients; and (3) the efficacy and future of provider-level interventions to facilitate adherence to tobacco treatment guidelines. Results OCCs are not adequately addressing smoking cessation with their patients. The reviewed studies indicate that although >75% assess tobacco use during an intake visit and >60% typically advise patients to quit, a substantially lower percentage recommend or arrange smoking cessation treatment or follow-up after a quit attempt. Less than 30% of OCCs report adequate training in cessation interventions. Conclusion Intervention trials focused on provider- and system-level change are needed to promote integration of evidence-based tobacco treatment into the oncology setting. Attention should be given to the barriers faced by OCCs when targeting interventions for the oncologic context. Implications for Practice This article reviews the existing literature on the gap between best and current practices for tobacco use assessment and treatment in the oncologic context. It also identifies clinician- and system-level barriers that should be addressed in order to lessen this gap and provides suggestions that could be applied across different oncology practice settings to connect patients with tobacco use treatments that may improve overall survival and quality of life.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been heralded as a major policy change that is expected to transform the delivery of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Few studies have reported on the perceived impacts of ACA from the perspectives of SUD treatment providers, such as physicians who prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder. The present study describes buprenorphine prescribers' perceptions regarding impacts of the ACA on the delivery of buprenorphine and examines whether state-level approaches to implementing ACA are associated with its perceived impacts. Data are drawn from a national sample of current buprenorphine prescribers (n = 1,174) who were surveyed by mail. On average, buprenorphine prescribers reported ambivalence regarding the impacts of the ACA, as indicated by a mean of 2.75 (SD = 0.69) on a scale that ranged from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). A multi-level mixed-effects regression model indicated that physicians practicing in states that were supportive of ACA, as indicated by adopting both the Medicaid expansion and implementing a state-based health insurance exchange, had more positive perceptions of the ACA than physicians in states that had declined both of these policies. This study suggests that state approaches to ACA may be associated with varied impacts.

Objective Many studies have examined the relationship between worry and cancer screening. Due to methodological inconsistencies, results of these studies have varied and few conclusions can be made when generalizing across studies. The purpose of the current study was to better understand the worry-cancer screening relationship using a prospective research design. Method 180 women enrolled in an annual ovarian cancer (OC) screening clinic completed surveys at three time points—pre-screening, day of screening, and post-screening—using three measures of cancer-specific worry. Results OC worry was highest in the weeks prior to screening and mere presentation at a screening clinic was associated with a significant worry decline. Observed elevations in worry following abnormal screening were not universal and varied by the instrument used to measure worry. Conclusions In contrast to our hypotheses, it appears that mere presentation at a cancer screening clinic may be a worry-reducing event. Receipt of abnormal results was not necessarily associated with increased worry.

Purpose Despite compelling support for the benefits of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer among high-risk individuals, awareness of LDCT screening and uptake remain low. The aim of this project was to explore the perspectives of ACR mammography screening program directors (MPDs) regarding efforts to raise LDCT screening awareness and appropriate referrals by identifying high-risk individuals participating in routine mammography. Methods MPDs were recruited from ACR-accredited mammography facilities to participate in semistructured interviews after the completion of an online survey. Interviews were conducted over the telephone, recorded, transcribed, and subsequently reviewed for accuracy. Twenty MPDs were interviewed, and 18 interviews were transcribed and included in the thematic analysis. A theme codebook was developed, and all interviews were coded using NVivo by two trained reviewers. Results Key themes were organized into four broad domains: (1) general attitudes toward the integration of LDCT screening, (2) identifying mammography patients at high risk for lung cancer, (3) counseling about LDCT screening, and (4) strategies to identify high-risk women and increase awareness and knowledge of LDCT screening. Overall, MPDs recognized the benefits of integrating mammography and LDCT screening and were receptive to educating and referring women for LDCT screening. However, training and workflow changes are needed to ensure successful implementation. Conclusions Qualitative data suggest that MPDs are amenable to leveraging the mammography setting to engage women about LDCT screening; however, additional tools, training, and/or staffing may be necessary to leverage the full potential of reaching women at high risk for lung cancer within the context of mammographic screening.

Objective To evaluate the impact of a web-based, plain language decision aid (CHOICES DA) on minority cancer survivors’ knowledge of cancer clinical trials (CCTs), readiness for making decisions about clinical trial participation, and willingness to participate in a clinical trial. Methods Participants were 64 Black and Hispanic cancer survivors from Miami, Florida. In a single arm intervention study, participants completed self-report assessments of CCT knowledge, decision readiness regarding clinical trial participation, and willingness to participate at three time points. Results Black and Hispanic participants did not differ on demographic characteristics. Post-test and follow-up measures of CCT knowledge and decision readiness were significantly greater than pre-test measures for the sample overall, and for Black and Hispanic participants separately. Few significant differences were observed between Black and Hispanic participant outcomes at each survey time point, and willingness to participate did not change overall and for either group independently. Conclusions Reviewing the CHOICES DA was associated with significantly improved knowledge and decision readiness to participate in a CCT immediately and at 2-week follow-up. Practical Implications These findings suggest that CHOICES DA may support informed decision making about CCT participation within an acute, yet clinically relevant window of time for minority cancer patients who are substantially under-represented in cancer research.

We describe the characteristics of individuals being screened in community settings including factors influencing screening decisions and the level of information sought prior to screening. Individuals from two community-based radiology clinics ( N = 27) were surveyed after screening. Screening efficacy and salience were the most important factors in screening decisions, whereas healthcare provider recommendations were rated not important. Half of participants reported no or little conversation about screening with their primary care provider, and 61.5 percent had not sought any information on screening. Individuals being screened in a community setting are unlikely to have sufficient information for an informed decision about screening.

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.

Increasing numbers of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) are insured by Medicaid. Little is known about whether providers of buprenorphine, an evidence-based OUD pharmacotherapy, accept this type of payment. Data are scant regarding whether Medicaid acceptance varies by physician and state-level characteristics. To address these gaps, national survey data from 1,174 buprenorphine-prescribing physicians (BPPs) and state characteristics were examined in a multi-level model of Medicaid acceptance. Only 52.0% of BPPs accepted Medicaid for buprenorphine-related office visits. Specialists in addiction and psychiatry were significantly less likely to accept Medicaid than other specialties, as were BPPs delivering buprenorphine in individual medical practice. Perceived adequacy of Medicaid reimbursement was positively associated with accepting Medicaid. Medicaid acceptance was not associated with states’ implementation of the Medicaid expansion. Individuals who are covered by Medicaid may face barriers to accessing buprenorphine treatment, which has high public health significance given the ongoing opioid epidemic.

INTRODUCTION: The public health imperative to reduce the burden of lung cancer has seen unprecedented progress in recent years. Realizing fully the advances in lung cancer treatment and control requires attention to potential barriers in their momentum and implementation. In this analysis, we present and evaluate the argument that stigma is a highly significant barrier to fulfilling the clinical promise of advanced care and reduced lung cancer burden. METHODS: This evaluation of lung cancer stigma is based on a multilevel perspective that incorporates the individual, persons in their immediate environment, the healthcare system, and the larger societal structure which shapes perceptions and decisions. We also consider current interventions and interventional needs within and across aspects of the lung cancer continuum, including prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. RESULTS: Current evidence suggests that stigma detrimentally impacts psychosocial, communication, and behavioral outcomes over the entire lung cancer control continuum and across multiple levels. Interventional efforts to alleviate stigma in the context of lung cancer show promise, yet more work is needed to evaluate their impact. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding and addressing the multi-level role of stigma is a crucial area for future study in order to realize the full benefits offered by lung cancer prevention, control, and treatment. Coordinated, interdisciplinary, and well-conceptualized efforts have the potential to reduce the barrier of stigma in the context of lung cancer and facilitate demonstrable improvements in clinical care and quality of life.

Background Patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer commonly experience signi•cant changes in quality of life (QoL) and levels of symptom distress. It is not known if a telehealth intervention would mitigate these changes. Objective To evaluate the impact of a telehealth intervention on QoL and symptom burden in patients undergoing initial treatment for head and neck cancers. Methods A randomized clinical trial comparing the impact on QoL and symptom distress of telehealth intervention and standard care was conducted with 80 patients (45 treatment, 35 control) who had been diagnosed with head or neck cancer and were receiving 1 or more treatment modalities. Treatment group participants responded daily to symptom management algorithms using a simple telehealth messaging device. QoL was evaluated by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Scale (FACTHN) and symptom burden by the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS). Control group participants completed assessments while they received routine care. Results In the posttreatment phase, the telehealth participants had signi•cantly better scores than the controls for physical well-being (20.6 vs 17.0, P = .02) and trial outcome index (59.9 vs. 50.2, P = .04) on the FACT-HN, and total scores on the MSAS (0.9 vs. 1.2, P = .04). Limitations The moderate sample size of 80 patients limits the power to measure more subtle impacts of the intervention. Conclusions Using telehealth to provide support to patients with head and neck cancer during the acute phase of treatment improved some aspects of posttreatment QoL and symptom burden.

OBJECTIVES Few studies have considered how providers make decisions to prescribe buprenorphine to new patients with opioid use disorder. This study examined the relative importance of patients' clinical, financial, and social characteristics on physicians' decision-making related to willingness to prescribe buprenorphine to new patients and the number of weeks of medication that they are willing to initially prescribe after induction. METHODS A national sample of 1174 current prescribers was surveyed. Respondents rated willingness to prescribe on a 0 to 10 scale and indicated the number of weeks of medication (ranging from none to >4 weeks) for 20 hypothetical patients. Conjoint analysis estimated relative importance scores and part-worth utilities for these 2 outcome ratings. RESULTS The mean rating for willingness to prescribe was 5.52 (SD 2.47), indicating a moderate willingness to implement buprenorphine treatment. The mean prescription length was 2.06 (SD 1.34), which corresponds to 1 week of medication. For both ratings, the largest importance scores were for other risky substance use, method of payment, and spousal involvement in treatment. Illicit benzodiazepine use, having Medicaid insurance to pay for the office visit, and having an opioid-using spouse were negatively associated with these outcome ratings, whereas a history of no risky alcohol or benzodiazepine use, cash payment, and having an abstinent spouse were positively associated with both ratings. CONCLUSIONS Reticence to prescribe to individuals using an illicit benzodiazepine and individuals with a drug-using spouse aligns with practice guidelines. However, reluctance to prescribe to patients with Medicaid may hamper efforts to expand access to treatment.

Purpose The aim of this project was to describe and evaluate the levels of lung cancer communication across the cancer prevention and control continuum for content posted to Twitter during a 10-day period (September 30 to October 9) in 2016. Methods Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to identify relationships between tweet characteristics in lung cancer communication on Twitter and user-level data. Overall, 3,000 tweets published between September 30 and October 9 were assessed by a team of three coders. Lung cancer–specific tweets by user type (individuals, media, and organizations) were examined to identify content and structural message features. The study also assessed differences by user type in the use of hashtags, directed messages, health topic focus, and lung cancer–specific focus across the cancer control continuum. Results Across the universe of lung cancer tweets, the majority of tweets focused on treatment and the use of pharmaceutical and research interventions, followed by awareness and prevention and risk topics. Among all lung cancer tweets, messages were most consistently tweeted by individual users, and personal behavioral mobilizing cues to action were rare. Conclusions Lung cancer advocates, as well as patient and medical advocacy organizations, with an interest in expanding the reach and effectiveness of social media efforts should monitor the topical nature of public tweets across the cancer continuum and consider integrating cues to action as a strategy to increase engagement and behavioral activation pertaining to lung cancer reduction efforts.

Purpose Several studies reported better outcomes when restoring edentulous mandible with unsplinted IODs compared to CCDs; however, it is not clear if these outcomes remain when the full literature is considered. The aim of this systematic review is to compare conventional complete dentures (CCDs) to unsplinted implant-retained overdentures (IODs) with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life. Study selection The main question addressed was: How do CCDs compare to unsplinted IODs with regard to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life? Three databases were electronically searched to identify articles comparing CCD to unsplinted IOD. Twenty-six articles were selected and reviewed in full. Of these selected articles, twenty-five compared CCDs restoring function in both arches to a maxillary CCD opposing a mandibular IOD retained by two unsplinted implants. Only one articles compared a maxillary CCDs to a maxillary IOD. Results Outcome measures varied among the studies, including the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), visual analogue scales (VAS), and masticatory performance tests. Overall, IODs were associated with significantly better patient’s masticatory performance and quality of life as indicated by Oral Health as Related to Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Mandibular unsplinted IODs were more likely than CCDs to be associated with improved OHRQoL for edentulous patients and were associated with significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak and ability to chew. Conclusions Results of this systematic review indicate the superiority of IODs retained by two unsplinted mandibular implants when compared to CCDs with regards to efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life.

Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder but the supply of buprenorphine physicians is currently inadequate to address the nation's prescription opioid crisis. Perception of need due to rising opioid overdose rates is one possible reason for physicians to adopt buprenorphine. This study examined associations between rates of growth in buprenorphine physicians and prescription opioid overdose mortality rates in US states.The total buprenorphine physician supply and number of physicians approved to treat 100 patients (per 100,000 population) were measured from June 2013 to January 2016. States were divided into two groups: those with rates of prescription opioid overdose mortality in 2013 at or above the median (5.5 deaths per 100,000 population) and those with rates below the median. State-level growth curves were estimated using mixed-effects regression to compare rates of growth between high and low overdose states.The total supply and the supply of 100-patient buprenorphine physicians grew significantly (total supply from 7.7 to 9.9 per 100,000 population, p0.001; 100-patient supply from 2.2 to 3.4 per 100,000 population, p0.001). Rates of growth were significantly greater in high overdose states when compared to low overdose states (total supply b=0.033, p0.01; 100-patient b=0.022, p0.01).The magnitude of the US prescription opioid crisis, as measured by the rate of prescription opioid overdose mortality, is associated with growth in the number of buprenorphine physicians. Because this observational design cannot establish causality, further research is needed to elucidate the factors influencing physicians' decisions to begin prescribing buprenorphine.

Background Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a major risk factor in the acquisition and transmission of HIV. Clinical practice guidelines call for the integration of HIV services in OUD treatment. This mixed methods study describes the integration of HIV services in buprenorphine treatment and examines whether HIV services vary by prescribers’ medical specialty and across practice settings. Methods Data were obtained via qualitative interviews with buprenorphine experts (n = 21) and mailed surveys from US buprenorphine prescribers (n = 1174). Survey measures asked about screening for HIV risk behaviors at intake, offering HIV education, recommending all new patients receive HIV testing, and availability of on-site HIV testing. Prescribers’ medical specialty, practice settings, caseload demographics, and physician demographics were measured. Multivariate models of HIV services were estimated, while accounting for the nesting of physicians within states. Results Qualitative interviews revealed that physicians often use injection behaviors as the primary indicator for whether a patient should be tested for HIV. Interviews revealed that HIV-related services were often viewed as beyond the scope of practice among general psychiatrists. Surveys indicated that prescribers screened for an average of 3.2 of 5 HIV risk behaviors (SD = 1.6) at intake. About 62.0% of prescribers delivered HIV education to patients and 53.2% recommended HIV testing to all new patients, but only 32.3% offered on-site HIV testing. Addiction specialists and psychiatrists screened for significantly more HIV risk behaviors than physicians in other specialties. Addiction specialists and psychiatrists were significantly less likely than other physicians to offer on-site testing. Physicians in individual medical practice were significantly less likely to recommend HIV testing and to offer onsite testing than physicians in other settings. Conclusions Buprenorphine treatment providers have not uniformly integrated HIV-related screening, education, and testing services for patients. Differences by medical specialty and practice setting suggest an opportunity for targeting efforts to increase implementation.

Background Research on how US physicians individualize buprenorphine-naloxone treatment is limited. The current study uses conjoint analysis to examine the importance of current dose, visit frequency, clinical indicators, and payment type on office visit and dose adjustments during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment. Methods A national random sample of 776 US buprenorphine-prescribing physicians participated in a mailed survey between October 2015 and July 2018. The survey contained 16 patient vignettes describing: (1) current dose, (2) urine drug test (UDT) results and opioid blockade, (3) recent intravenous use, (4) visit attendance, (5) counseling adherence, (6) payment, and (7) visit schedule. Physicians rated how they would adjust office visits (0=definitely decrease to 5=no change to 10=definitely increase) and the dose (0=definitely decrease to 5=no change to 10=definitely increase). Descriptive statistics were calculated for the vignette responses. Conjoint analysis was used to estimate relative importance scores and part-worth utilities. Results Across the vignettes, the mean response for adjusting office visits was 7.43 (SD = 1.69), indicating a tendency to increase the frequency of visits. UDT results/opioid blockade, intravenous use, and current visit schedule had the greatest importance scores for office visit adjustments. The mean response for adjusting the dose was 5.48 (SD = 1.69), corresponding with a tendency toward not changing dose. Current dose, UDT results/opioid blockade, and intravenous use had the largest importance scores for dose adjustment. Conclusions Physicians individualized buprenorphine-naloxone treatment in response to hypothetical patient attributes by changing visit frequency and, to a lesser extent, modifying maintenance dose, in a manner generally consistent with current practice guidelines.