Paula Celestino

Patient willingness and barriers to receiving a CT scan for lung cancer screening

CT scans are becoming a more common method for detecting lung cancers at an earlier, potentially more curable, stage of disease. There is currently little data on attitudes and beliefs about screening for lung cancer. This paper presents the results of a 2011 survey of adult current and former smokers that queried about past use of CT scanning and reasons for having or not having the screening done. A random-digit dialed telephone survey was administered to a representative sample of 1290 US adults. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the correlates of having the test while controlling for the covariates. A total of 13.4% (n = 45) of the sample had ever had a CT scan to detect lung cancer. Of current smokers, 14.6% had received a CT scan, as compared with 12.7% of former smokers. The oldest age group (55+) was significantly more likely to have received a CT scan than the younger age groups. 78.5% of current smokers and 81.4% of former smokers indicated willingness to get the test if advised to do so by their doctor. Among those who said they were not willing to get screened, lack of insurance coverage was cited by 33% of current smokers and 25% of former smokers. Additionally, 33% of current smokers were afraid to find out whether they had cancer. The main barrier to CT scanning for lung cancer is likely to be insurance coverage for the test, which would be a burden for those on limited and fixed incomes. Next steps should include further research into the effect of increased public education about the availability, risks, benefits and barriers to lung cancer screening.

Relapse-Prevention Booklets as an Adjunct to a Tobacco Quitline: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial

INTRODUCTION Relapse prevention (RP) remains a major challenge to smoking cessation. Previous research found that a set of self-help RP booklets significantly reduced smoking relapse. This study tested the effectiveness of RP booklets when added to the existing services of a telephone quitline. METHODS Quitline callers (N = 3458) were enrolled after their 2-week quitline follow-up call and randomized to one of three interventions: (1) Usual Care: standard intervention provided by the quitline, including brief counseling and nicotine replacement therapy; (2) Repeated Mailings (RM): eight Forever Free RP booklets sent to participants over 12 months; and (3) Massed Mailings: all eight Forever Free RP booklets sent upon enrollment. Follow-ups were conducted at 6-month intervals, through 24 months. The primary outcome measure was 7-day-point-prevalence-abstinence. RESULTS Overall abstinence rates were 61.0% at baseline, and 41.9%, 42.7%, 44.0%, and 45.9% at the 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month follow-ups, respectively. Although RM produced higher abstinence rates, the differences did not reach significance for the full sample. Post-hoc analyses of at-risk subgroups revealed that among participants with high nicotine dependence (n = 1593), the addition of RM materials increased the abstinence rate at 12 months (42.2% vs. 35.2%; OR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.03% to 1.85%; P = .031) and 24 months (45% vs. 38.8%; OR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.01% to 1.73%; P = .046). CONCLUSIONS Sending self-help RP materials to all quitline callers appears to provide little benefit to deterring relapse. However, selectively sending RP booklets to callers explicitly seeking assistance for RP and those identified as highly dependent on nicotine might still prove to be worthwhile.

Using Diverse Communication Strategies to Re-Engage Relapsed Tobacco Quitline Users in Treatment, New York State, 2014

Introduction Most smoking cessation programs lack strategies to reach relapsed participants and encourage a new quit attempt. We used a multimodal intervention to encourage past quitline registry participants to recycle into services. Methods We invited 3,510 past quitline participants back to quitline services, using messages consecutively delivered through Interactive Voice Response (IVR), followed by postcard and email reminders, 2 Short Messaging Services (SMS) texts, and a final cycle of IVR. The primary study outcome was recycling into a new quitline-assisted quit attempt. We used statistical analyses to assess rates and predictors of recycling (socioeconomic, health- and tobacco-related variables) with study participants and compared the study sample with registry participants not selected for the study (comparison group). Results Quitline services were re-initiated by 12.2% of the intervention sample and 1.9% of the comparison group (z = 6.03, P < .001, effect size of 0.44). Most re-enrollments were done via direct IVR-transfer to the quitline. Predictors of re-enrollment were age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45 for every 10 years of age; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–1.57), number of years smoking (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18–1.36), and reporting cancer (OR = 2.32; 95% CI, 1.47–3.68) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.55; 95% CI, 1.16–2.10). Living with other smokers was correlated with a lower chance of recycling into treatment (OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57–0.91). Conclusion Recycling previous quitline participants using a proactive, IVR-based intervention is effective in reinitiating quitline-assisted quit attempts. Older, long-term smokers reporting chronic conditions are more likely than younger smokers to re-engage in quitline support when these methods are used.

A Good Idea May Not Be Good Enough: Stakeholder Buy In to QuitConnect, a National Smokers’ Registry

Purpose: To examine interest and concerns among those who fund and operate state-run smoking cessation helplines (quitlines) about the concept of creating a centralized smokers’ registry that could be used to reengage smokers after they receive initial quitline support services. Design: We conducted 3, hour-long focus groups with stakeholders, covering the perceived benefits and barriers to creating a smokers’ registry. Setting: The focus groups were conducted via telephone. Participants: Three groups participated: quitline service providers (n = 14), quitline funders (n = 9), and national quitline partners (n = 8). Method: Data collection: Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and coded for major relevant themes. Analysis Strategies: We used a grounded theory approach. Results: Stakeholders were generally positive about the concept of a centralized smokers’ registry (ie, QuitConnect), especially with its potential to link relapsed smokers to ongoing research studies designed to help smokers achieve abstinence from tobacco. However, stakeholders expressed concern about QuitConnect duplicating services already offered by state quitlines. Conclusion: Despite a common goal, many state quitline stakeholders had strong reservations about the creation of a centralized smokers’ registry unless they could see clear evidence that the registry added value and was not duplicative of their existing services.