The importance of co-located, high intensity smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening: Findings from the Process Evaluation of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study ====================================================================================================================================================================================== * G McCutchan * HD Quinn-Scoggins * H Tong * P Smith * SL Quaife * MEJ Callister * R Thorley * DR Baldwin * RJ Beeken * H Copeland * PAJ Crosbie * S Lewis * S Rogerson * Q Wu * RL Murray * K Brain ## ABSTRACT **Objective** Process evaluation of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study intervention, to provide evidence regarding optimal integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening (LCS). **Design** Mixed-methods process evaluation. **Setting** YESS was a Randomised Controlled Trial testing the effect of personalised smoking cessation support, integrated within LCS. YESS study participants were recruited from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. **Participants/data collection** Semi-structured interviews with 45 trial participants and eight SCPs 4, 12 and 52-weeks after screening (participants) or training (SCPs). Thematic analysis to assess intervention exposure, context, contamination and theory. Observations of SCP consultations on the screening unit (n=84; 4%) and 4-weeks after screening (n=132; 13%) tested intervention fidelity. **Intervention** The YESS study tested opt-out, co-located standard best practice (SBP) smoking cessation support (control) versus a theory-informed personalised risk information booklet designed to increase efficacy beliefs in addition to SBP (booklet intervention), delivered by trained smoking cessation practitioners (SCPs). **Results** Intervention context was paramount: participants in both trial arms described benefits of co-located and ongoing high-intensity smoking cessation support, with immediate provision of pharmacotherapy. Tailored, non-judgemental care was considered key to initiating and sustaining quitting, particularly for participants at various points along their quit or those awaiting their scan result. Fidelity was high (98%) and moderate (75%) for SBP, moderate (77%) for the booklet intervention. Exposure varied by participants’ needs, including their screening results. Potential contamination was observed, with SCPs delivering elements of the booklet intervention training across both trial arms. **Conclusions** A personalised approach is critical to supporting smoking cessation in LCS. Harnessing the benefits of LCS for supporting cessation at the time of screening requires investment in specialist practitioners to deliver person-centred smoking cessation support. *Trial registration.* [www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03750110](http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03750110) **What is already known on the topic** * Integrated smoking cessation in lung cancer screening is recommended due to the additive benefits of screening participation and cessation on lung cancer mortality. * Existing evidence supports the provision of higher-intensity smoking cessation interventions within lung cancer screening, such as immediate smoking cessation support at screening, with multiple sessions of behavioural counselling and/or pharmacotherapy. * However, there is currently no consensus about the optimal high-intensity model to support smoking cessation using behavioural science principles within lung cancer screening. This is a major priority for research, practice and policy. **What this study adds** * We provide evidence for the benefits of co-located and longer-term (up to 12-weeks in person and remote) person-centred support, delivered by trained specialist lung screening SCPs, regardless of trial allocation. * Future implementation of smoking cessation embedded in lung screening may benefit from investment in specialist lung screening SCPs, adopting a flexible, person-centred approach to the offer and delivery of SBP smoking cessation support. ## INTRODUCTION Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography for high-risk populations based on age and smoking history has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality,1,2 leading to widespread adoption in high-income countries3 and recommended implementation in the UK.4 Integrated prevention is recommended across LCS programmes due to the additive benefit of screening and cessation on lung cancer mortality (14% additional reduction5), and increased cost-effectiveness.6 Evidence-informed approaches to integrating smoking cessation and reducing smoking-related inequalities are a major research priority for informing LCS practice and policy.7 Various approaches have been tested including low-intensity interventions such as leaflets8 and self-/practitioner-referral to external services.9 Immediate provision of smoking cessation advice10 and higher-intensity interventions such as offering multiple behavioural support sessions and/or pharmacotherapy10–12 have shown promise in supporting cessation within LCS. However, high-quality evidence is needed regarding the optimal approach, underpinned by behavioural science principles.12 The prevalence of high nicotine dependence and socioeconomic deprivation among lung screening-eligible individuals presents multi-factorial challenges to quitting smoking, reiterating the need for high-intensity approaches in this population.13 The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study14 evaluated the effectiveness of an opt-out, co-located standard best practice (SBP) smoking cessation service within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST15,16) versus SBP plus a booklet intervention (Figures 1&2). SBP, in line with National Centre for Smoking Cessation standards, consisted of point-of-care behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and 12-weeks of ongoing support with smoking cessation practitioners (SCPs). Given that participation in LCS has been shown to be a key moment to offer cessation support,17 research to enhance the potential benefits of SBP further using theory-informed interventions is needed. The booklet intervention, backed by behavioural science, included 12-weeks SBP with an additional personalised booklet intervention incorporating YLST scans of the lungs and heart to indicate any coronary artery calcification and emphysema, or no damage. The booklet, based on the Extended Parallel Processing Model (Figure 2),18 was delivered by SCPs following booklet intervention training and using an accompanying script tailored to the extent of heart and/or lung damage. Booklet delivery was designed to further promote increased self-efficacy and response-efficacy beliefs over and above SBP.19 Our process evaluation20,21 assessed influences on delivery of the YESS booklet intervention and SBP to aid interpretation of the main trial findings (Table 1). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/F1) Figure 1. Flow chart of Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study participants and process evaluation components, adapted from Murray *et al* (2020)14 ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/F2) Figure 2. LOGIC model for YESS enhanced View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/T1) Table 1. Summary of YESS process evaluation components and data collection methods ## METHODS Reporting conforms to STROBE and COREQ guidelines (Supplementary Material 1&2). ### Study design Mixed-methods trial process evaluation 21 to examine fidelity, exposure, contamination, context and theory testing in relation to the main trial findings for the provision of SBP smoking cessation and YESS personalised booklet intervention (Table 1). Data collection took place between April 2019 and April 2021. ### Ethical approval and consent procedures Trial participants provided consent for observational data and qualitative interviews as part of the YESS consent procedures. 14 SCPs provided consent for each interview. Ethical approval was granted by the Health Research Authority, East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/2019). ### Data source and sample #### Observational data Audio-recorded consultations with the SCP (i) on the YLST mobile screening unit; and (ii) four weeks after attending YLST screening unit, were sampled purposively based on SCP whole time equivalent, participants’ age and gender, and screening unit location. Incomplete recordings (n=20) were excluded from analysis. #### Qualitative interviews (YESS participants) Intervention (n=10) and control (n=5) participants were interviewed at three time points: 4-weeks, 12-weeks and 52-weeks after screening unit attendance (total n=45). Participants were sampled purposively at each time point based on age, quit status and gender, and for intervention participants, extent of heart/lung damage and assigned SCP. Participants were given a £25 shopping voucher. #### Qualitative interviews (SCPs) All eight SCPs were invited for sequential interviews at three time points: four, 12 and 52-weeks after the study commenced (or end of employment). ### Data collection #### Observational data Audio-recordings were assessed for fidelity of SCPs delivering essential components of SBP and the YESS booklet intervention (Table 1; Supplementary Material 3&4). Separate observational coding forms were used according to quit status (SBP) and booklet (YESS booklet intervention), Table 1. Free-text boxes captured researcher (HT) reflections. #### Qualitative interviews (YESS trial participants and SCPs) Semi-structured topic guides were developed to gather in-depth data regarding fidelity, exposure, context, contamination and theory testing (Table 1; Supplementary Material 5&6). Participant interviews were conducted by HQS in-person (n=15) or by telephone due to COVID-19 social distancing restrictions (n=30). SCP interviews were conducted in person (n=12) or by telephone (n=10) due to COVID-19 restrictions. ### Data analysis #### Observational data Data were entered into Excel for descriptive analysis. Each essential component delivered scored “1”. Scores were summed to produce total fidelity scores at each time point (SBP delivery: (i) on the screening unit; (ii) 4-weeks; and (iii) YESS intervention booklet delivery at 4-weeks). Due to anticipated variation in the total number of essential components delivered at each time point, by participant quit status, and by intervention booklet type (Supplementary Files 3&4), weighted fidelity scores at each time point are reported. Weighted scores were calculated as the sum of the mean proportion of assessment criteria delivered by quit status/booklet number, multiplied by the number of consultations delivered for that quit status/booklet, and divided by the total number of consultations. Confidence intervals (CI) were calculated at a 95% level. 22 Fidelity (percentage of essential components delivered) was categorised as high (>80%), moderate (50%–80%) or low (<50%).23 #### Qualitative interviews Interviews were audio-recorded with permission and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically24 in the stages of familiarisation, development of codes, coding (using NVivo 12; Supplementary Material 7&8) and interpretation of key themes. Codes were initially developed to align with process evaluation components and underpinning theory,18 with input from the research team. Ten percent of transcripts were independently dual coded by the research team (HQS, GM or HT), with good agreement, and all discrepancies/amendments to the coding framework resolved through discussion. Two researchers (HQS, GM or HT) independently reviewed all coded data, and met to discuss key themes in a series of three one-day analysis workshops. #### Data synthesis Data synthesis workshop including research team members (GM, HQS, HT, PS) to discuss and agree on key findings across data sources that were similar (corroboration), discordant (contradiction), contrasted but generated insights together (complementarity) or enhanced one another (elaboration).25 ### Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Members of the public living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and with a smoking history were involved in intervention development. These PPI activities were designed to ensure that the intervention met the needs of the target population.19 The Nottingham Tobacco and Nicotine PPI group discussed the main findings of the study, providing their reflections to aid data interpretation. Findings will be disseminated to members of the public via established networks including PPI (e.g. Wales Cancer Research Centre) and via the funder (Yorkshire Cancer Research). ### Role of the funding source The funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation, writing of the report, or decision to submit for publication. ## RESULTS ### Sample characteristics #### Observational data Fidelity was assessed in 84 (4·4%) complete recordings of SCP consultations on the mobile screening unit. Of SCP consultations at 4-weeks, 132 (13·2%) complete recordings were included. Sample characteristics are shown in Table 2. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/T2) Table 2: Observational data sample characteristics *20 incomplete recordings (on screening unit, n=19; four-weeks after attending screening unit, n=1) were removed from analysis due to the recording starting part-way through the consultation or equipment failure meaning the recording was incomplete; N/A: not applicable #### YESS trial participant interviews There was an even split of Intervention and control participants by gender and age. Current smoking was over-represented in SBP participants interviewed. Of the Intervention participants interviewed, most received a booklet showing heart damage and moderate lung damage (Table 3). View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/T3) Table 3. YESS trial participant characteristics (qualitative interviews) #### SCP interviews Seven SCPs participated in all three interviews; one SCP participated in the end of study interview. Most SCPs were female (n=6) and had 5-10 years of experience. ### Process evaluation findings Data from all sources are presented by process evaluation component, with exemplar quotes provided in Table 4. View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/T4) Table 4. Exemplar quotes from qualitative interviews with YESS trial participants and SCPs ### Fidelity SBP was delivered with high fidelity (98·0%, CI:96·6% to 98·9%) on the screening unit, and with moderate fidelity (74·6%, CI:72·1% to 76·6%) four weeks after attending the screening unit, Table 5. SCPs described prioritising aspects of SBP based on participant needs or time constraints. View this table: [Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403/T5) Table 5. Fidelity of SBP and YESS booklet intervention The YESS intervention booklet was delivered with moderate fidelity (76·9%, CI:74·9% to 78·8%), Table 6. All SCPs understood the importance of delivering the intervention booklet consistently, but also discussed adopting their own style of delivery in practice. Some SCPs tended to focus on what they considered “key points”, while other SCPs relied heavily on the script. When participants had been urgently referred on lung cancer diagnostic pathway (“fast-tracked”) or diagnosed with lung cancer, SCPs described approaching booklet delivery sensitively and some SCPs offered the option to opt-out or to revisit the booklet at a later date. ### Exposure: SBP #### SBP delivery: behavioural support and pharmacotherapy All participants described the acceptability and importance of having SCPs co-located on the mobile lung screening unit. SCPs felt that the combination of high-intensity, immediate and ongoing SBP support with a range of point-of-care, free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), e-cigarettes aided or maintained abstinence, and was considered to have greatest impact on quitting, irrespective of trial arm. SCPs described LCS being a unique context and cohort of patients with varying levels of quit motivation, anxiety about screening, and often with complex social and health needs. A person-centred, flexible approach to the offer of smoking cessation support was considered vital. In both trial arms, SCPs described tailoring discussions about barriers to quitting and the benefits of cessation based on the individual’s quit motivation and emotional state. For those not ready to set an immediate quit date, SCPs described using the first four weeks (prior to randomisation), as a buffer period to increase participants’ interest and confidence in trying NRT. All trial participants described a trusting relationship with their SCP, founded on non-judgemental and compassionate care, and participants felt valued and worthy of the resource invested in them. #### Quality and quantity of SBP SCPs considered that referral to external stop-smoking services would not have the same impact on quit rates. They compared their experience working on YESS with their personal experience working with external smoking cessation services. Compared to their previous roles, SCPs described higher quality SBP with greater flexibility afforded within YESS, including absence of quit rate targets, more intensive support (e.g. weekly/longer appointment times), a broader range of NRT and provision of e-cigarettes. These adjustments were considered to positively impact on participants’ receptivity and motivation to quit. Co-location on the mobile unit, with a low pressure commitment, flexible appointment times to fit around participants’ work, and in-person/remote support to confidently use NRT e.g. share videos, reduced access barriers for participants across both trial arms. ### Exposure: YESS booklet intervention #### YESS booklet intervention delivery SCPs initially felt apprehensive about delivering the booklet to intervention participants who may become upset. However, SCP training and the associated booklet script boosted SCP confidence to deliver the booklet intervention. SCPs found delivering booklets with extensive heart and/or lung damage challenging and “draining”, although easier (“less of a blow”) to deliver when Intervention participants disclosed a prior diagnosis of co-morbid heart and/or lung condition(s). #### YESS booklet intervention use Intervention participants were generally receptive to, and grateful for the booklet. All 4-week and 12-week, and most 52-week intervention participants kept their booklet, usually somewhere safe e.g., with other medical information. Most had shown their booklet to someone close to them, e.g. a spouse or trusted friend. However, some with extensive heart and/or lung damage preferred not to share their diagnosis with family or friends to avoid worrying them. A few participants (mostly women) shared their booklet more widely i.e. to friends/family via WhatsApp, and some visited their GP to discuss the booklet. There were differences in how participants used their booklet. Some, mostly female participants, regularly referred back to their booklet to remain abstinent e.g. displaying it on the fridge/on top of cigarette packets, while others did not refer back to the booklet. Differences in booklet use may reflect variation in SCP delivery: some SCPs actively advised participants to refer back to their booklet/place it somewhere salient; other SCPs tended not to mention the booklet again. #### Comprehension SCPs ensured intervention participants understood that the images in the booklet were their own and that damage could not be reversed, while trying to strike a balance between over- and under-reassurance of results. All intervention participants demonstrated good levels of comprehension that stopping smoking could protect their health by preventing (further) calcification/emphysema, and that existing damage could not be reversed. However, some misinterpreted the images i.e. assumed the lung not shown was healthy. For intervention participants with previous known diagnoses of lung and/or heart problems, most described truly understanding the damage for the first time because the SCP explained their diagnosis in lay language with the scan images. SCPs recounted a few consultations where intervention participants were dismissive of the booklet: some queried whether the images were their own, or whether the damage was smoking-related. ### Contamination #### Potential contamination of YESS intervention components between trial arms SCPs enjoyed the theory and lung health aspects of the intervention booklet training, and felt elements of the bespoke training improved their practice. One SCP described being actively conscious of potential crossover of booklet intervention components to the control arm, as per their training. However, there was evidence suggestive of contamination: that SCPs drew on elements of the booklet intervention training with participants across both trial arms. For example, when SCPs used participants’ attendance at lung screening to steer conversations about the additive benefits of quitting to further protect lung health (see *Context* section), SCPs used similar phrasing from the intervention booklet script/training. Further, although not part of the booklet intervention or SBP, participants tended to discuss their LCS results with the SCPs. By the 4-week SCP appointment, most participants had received their LCS results letter (all clear/further investigations/”fast-tracked” for suspected lung cancer). SCPs tended to utilise the screening result to encourage efficacy beliefs initiating or sustaining a quit attempt, drawing on the health-benefits of cessation, and tailoring discussions to their screening result e.g. SCPs approached conversations with fast-tracked participants with extreme sensitivity, but reiterated the benefits of quitting for their health, any planned treatment and prognosis. ### Context #### Lung cancer screening setting Trial participants across both arms described welcoming, friendly and compassionate staff throughout the YLST mobile screening unit. SCPs felt this positively impacted on screening attendees being more receptive to the offer of smoking cessation support. However, some participants across trial arms (particularly women) described feeling a moral obligation to accept support. Being invited to a lung health service set-up specifically to help people with a long-term history of smoking enabled participants across both trial arms feel valued. The lung screening context, in which participants had pro-actively engaged in a service for their lung health, was used by SCPs to steer conversations around screening as an opportunity to support engagement with the service for participants in both trial arms. For most trial participants in both arms, the YLST LCS results letter (regardless of result) acted as an additional motivator to consider making a change to their smoking, and SCPs tailored SBP support in both trial arms to LCS result. Intervention participants tended to place more value on their YLST letter versus booklet. #### Trial-related procedures Elements of the trial questionnaire, which was completed by SCPs, acted as an additional tool to support cessation conversations e.g., to identify prior NRT use/barriers to quitting, enabling SCPs to then build participants’ response-efficacy beliefs in relation to quitting. For example, with participants who indicated worry about lung cancer on the questionnaire, SCPs would focus discussions on the benefits of quitting to protect lung health and reduce their risk of lung cancer. Carbon Monoxide (CO) readings obtained for the trial (although can be utilised in SBP) acted as a personalised intervention, with high readings eliciting a high-threat response. Seeing CO readings decrease to mirror “non-smokers” provided motivation and immediate external validation. ### Theory testing #### Threat response All intervention participants described an emotive, high-threat response to the booklet, regardless of levels of damage. Response was intensified for people with emphysema in their family and/or social network. Vitally, SCPs managed emotional reactions to the booklet. No intervention participants described an initial low/no threat response to the booklet, although threat responses were lower by the 52-week interviews. Some intervention participants described feeling guilt and shame when smoking after seeing the booklet images, and pictured imagery of dirt entering their lungs when smoking again. #### Response-efficacy (belief that stopping smoking would benefit/protect their health) All intervention participants exhibited strong response-efficacy beliefs in response to their booklet. SCPs described using the booklet as another excellent tool (in addition to CO validation, trial questionnaire, NRT products and screening results letter) to support discussions about the consequences of smoking, particularly in the context of LCS. Participants felt the personalisation of the booklet containing their own scan images was of greater impact than images on cigarette packets or generic health information. #### Self-efficacy Discussions with SCPs around the intervention booklet further reinforced participants’ reported beliefs about confidence in quitting that had been encouraged in earlier discussions as part of SBP. #### Protection motivation/defensive motivation Most intervention participants had quit smoking or decided to quit prior to receiving the booklet, and the booklet helped them to sustain abstinence. SCPs felt that the booklet was most impactful for intervention participants who were considering, but unsure about quitting (i.e. “on the fence”), because they felt empowered and motivated to quit. For a small minority of intervention participants who responded to their booklet with strong emotional reactions/rejection, this led to disengagement with the booklet and service. ## DISCUSSION This was the first study to highlight the importance of providing immediate behavioural smoking cessation support with pharmacotherapy, physically co-located within LCS. High-intensity and long-term SBP smoking cessation support using a person-centred approach was considered vital to boost receptivity and motivation to quit, and to maintain abstinence in both trial arms. SCPs delivered the booklet intervention flexibly by adapting delivery of the booklet intervention to individual need. SCPs described variably in their approach for how they deliver the booklet. There was evidence of possible contamination of the booklet intervention components between trial arms. In line with the SCPs booklet intervention training, the LCS context (attendance at screening and results letter) was used by SCPs in both trial arms to boost response-efficacy beliefs about the benefits of quitting. Participants felt that reliable, long-term SBP had the greatest impact in supporting smoking cessation in a LCS context, over-and-above the booklet intervention. We provide further evidence for the benefits of immediate10 and high-intensity11 smoking cessation support within LCS. Our process evaluation extends these findings to emphasise the importance of co-located services, with longer-term (up to 12 weeks) person-centred and non-judgemental support, for engaging individuals with high nicotine dependence in smoking cessation support26. The lack of intervention effect on quit rates observed in YESS (Murray et al, submitted27) could potentially be explained by the high standard of SBP delivered four-weeks prior to, and in conjunction with the booklet intervention; in turn potentially limiting the ability of the booklet intervention to provide additive benefit. Potential contamination of the booklet intervention between trial arms could also explain the lack of intervention effect. Previous research has shown that participation in LCS and receiving LCS results can increase motivation to quit smoking.28 In this study, SCPs across both trial arms used participants’ attendance at LCS and/or LCS results to highlight the added benefit of cessation for their lung health. This was influenced by the training received as part of the booklet intervention and highlights the potential value of a specialist lung screening SCP model, similar to specialist models used in other contexts e.g. pregnancy.29,30 Our robust process evaluation is the first to provide rich insights regarding the importance of high-intensity, co-located smoking cessation support within LCS. We rigorously collected and analysed data across multiple timepoints and data sources, adding important evidence from the perspective of both SCPs and service-users in relation to integrated smoking cessation in LCS. Limitations of the study include possible sampling/selection bias for the observational assessments, in which SCPs selected consultations to record and resulted in some SCPs recording more consultations than others. Further, due to the process evaluation design, we were unable to explore gender effects of the booklet intervention in detail in relation to main trial findings, or confirm contamination between trial arms due to subtle nuances of communication, and this warrants further research. Future controlled evaluations of smoking cessation interventions in lung screening could address issues of contamination by having different SCPs deliver the control and intervention arms. Point-of-care/ongoing NRT provision combined with behavioural support within the screening context (i.e. attendance and results letter) can be used positively to encourage quitting. Future implementation of smoking cessation embedded in lung screening may benefit from investment in specialist ‘lung screening-experienced’ SCPs,29,30 with enhanced SBP training to further develop SCPs’ skills in building self-efficacy and response-efficacy beliefs in the context of LCS. Specialist lung screening SCPs could adopt a flexible, person-centred approach to the offer and delivery of SBP cessation support, enabling tailored support based on quit motivation, the lung screening context and wider determinants of health in the high-risk population typically experiencing long-term tobacco dependence.13 A buffer period between screening attendance and quit date can be used to increase participants’ interest and confidence in using NRT prior to abrupt cessation, particularly for participants not considering quitting at the time of screening. However, maintaining, delivering and monitoring the high standards of SBP delivered within this study may be challenging in a real-world setting. This study provides novel, high-quality evidence for the benefits of integrated and ongoing SBP smoking cessation support within LCS. Due to the unique context and cohort of lung screening patients, support for quitting smoking should be delivered flexibly by specialist SCPs. ## Supporting information suppl File [[supplements/310403_file04.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability Data sharing of anonymised data is available upon reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for a data-sharing request form. Data-sharing requests will be considered for a methodologically sound proposal. The request should detail clear objectives, what data are requested, timelines for use, intellectual property and publication rights, data release definition in the contract and participant informed consent, etc. A data-sharing agreement from the sponsor may be required. ## Role of the funding source The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. ## Declaration of interests RT, PC have received payment/honoraria for a webinar with Bayer. DRB has received lecture honoraria with Astra Zeneca, MSD and Roche. RM has received consulting fees from Action on Smoking and Health and Cancer Research UK. RM is a Trustee of Action on Smoking and Health and a member of the Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. ## Conflicts of interest Interests declared as above. No other conflicts of interest. ## Data sharing Data sharing of anonymised data is available upon reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for a data-sharing request form. Data-sharing requests will be considered for a methodologically sound proposal. The request should detail clear objectives, what data are requested, timelines for use, intellectual property and publication rights, data release definition in the contract and participant informed consent, etc. A data-sharing agreement from the sponsor may be required. ## Author contributions RM and MC co-led the main YESS trial. The YESS process evaluation was designed by KB, with substantial input and expert advice from HQS, GM, RM, SQ and RT, and the YESS TMG. Qualitative process evaluation data was collected by HSQ. Observational process evaluation data collection was co-ordinated by HSQ and RT (audio-recordings taken by SCPs during consultations). Bespoke observational data coding forms were initially developed by HSQ, with expert input from KB, RM, SQ, RT, GM and HT. HSQ, GM, HT and PS conducted process evaluation data analysis, overseen by KB and RM. GM drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. ## Transparency statement The lead author affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported. No important aspects of the study have been omitted. ## Copyright/license for publication The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide licence to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located; and, vi) licence any third party to do any or all of the above. ## Acknowledgements We thank all participants who took part in the study. We acknowledge the contribution of all the YESS study team (Gail Barden, Jannine Brooks, Kate Fraser, Thomas Griffiths, Matthew Hudson, Sue O’Shea, Dianne Preesha, Susan Tyrrell, Jill Young, Rebecca Thorley, Harriet Copeland, Alex Ashurst) and the whole YLST teams in delivering these interventions. This work was funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research (award references L403 and NOT414). Thanks to Prof Daniel Farewell for his advice on calculating fidelity scores. From September 2021, P. Alexandris was supported by the Barts Charity (MRC&U0036). From January 2021, S.L. Quaife was supported by the Barts Charity (MRC&U0036). R.J. Beeken is supported by a Yorkshire Cancer Research Fellowship (L389RB). P.A.J. Crosbie is supported by the Manchester National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20007). H. D. Quinn-Scoggins is supported by Health and Care Research Wales as part of the Primary and Emergency Care Research Centre (PRIME) (517195). G. McCutchan is supported by Health and Care Research Wales as part of the Wales Cancer Research Centre (517190). ## Footnotes * * Joint senior author * Received July 15, 2024. * Revision received July 15, 2024. * Accepted July 17, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## REFERENCES 1. 1.de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial. N Engl J Med 2020;382(6):503–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1911793&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31995683&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F18%2F2024.07.15.24310403.atom) 2. 2.Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365(5):395–409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1102873&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21714641&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F18%2F2024.07.15.24310403.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000293447800004&link_type=ISI) 3. 3.Lung Cancer Policy Network. Interactive map of lung cancer screening. 2024. [www.lungcancerpolicynetwork.com/interactive-map-of-lung-cancer-screening/](http://www.lungcancerpolicynetwork.com/interactive-map-of-lung-cancer-screening/) (accessed February 26, 2024). 4. 4.UK National Screening Committee. UK NSC recommends introduction of targeted lung cancer screening. 2022. [https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2022/09/29/uk-nsc-recommends-introduction-of-targeted-lung-cancer-screening/](https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2022/09/29/uk-nsc-recommends-introduction-of-targeted-lung-cancer-screening/) (accessed February 26, 2024) 5. 5.Cao P, Jeon J, Levy DT, et al. Potential Impact of Cessation Interventions at the Point of Lung Cancer Screening on Lung Cancer and Overall Mortality in the United States. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15(7):1160–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.02.008. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jtho.2020.02.008&link_type=DOI) 6. 6.Villanti AC, Jiang Y, Abrams DB, Pyenson BS. A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening and the Additional Benefits of Incorporating Smoking Cessation Interventions. PLOS ONE 2013;8(8):e71379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071379 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0071379&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23940744&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F18%2F2024.07.15.24310403.atom) 7. 7.O’Dowd EL, Lee RW, Akram AR, et al. Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme. Lancet Oncol 2023;24(5):e207–e18. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00104-3 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00104-3&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Clark MA, Gorelick JJ, Sicks JD, et al. The Relations Between False Positive and Negative Screens and Smoking Cessation and Relapse in the National Lung Screening Trial: Implications for Public Health. Nicotine Tob Res 2016;18(1):17–24. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntv037 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ntr/ntv037&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25746779&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F18%2F2024.07.15.24310403.atom) 9. 9.Kotti T, Katsampouris E, Ruparel M, et al. A randomised controlled trial testing acceptance of practitioner-referral versus self-referral to stop smoking services within the Lung Screen Uptake Trial. Addiction. 2023;118(10):2007–13. doi: 10.1111/add.16269 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/add.16269&link_type=DOI) 10. 10.Williams PJ, Philip KEJ, Buttery SC, et al. Immediate smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening: long-term outcomes from two randomised controlled trials. Thorax, 2024;79(3):269–273. doi: 10.1136/thorax-2023-220367 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToidGhvcmF4am5sIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6Ijc5LzMvMjY5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDcvMTgvMjAyNC4wNy4xNS4yNDMxMDQwMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 11. 11.Williams PJ, Philip KEJ, Alghamdi SM, et al. Strategies to deliver smoking cessation interventions during targeted lung health screening - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chronic Respiratory Disease 2023;20. doi:10.1177/14799731231183446 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/14799731231183446&link_type=DOI) 12. 12.Huang S, Tang O, Zheng X, Li H, Wu Y, Yang L. Effectiveness of smoking cessation on the high-risk population of lung cancer with early screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials until January 2022. Arch Public Health 2023;81(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01111-5 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13690-023-01111-5&link_type=DOI) 13. 13.Smith P, Daniel R, Murray RL, Moore G, Nelson A, Brain K. Psychosocial determinants of quit motivation in older smokers from deprived backgrounds: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 2021;11(5):e044815. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044815 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvNS9lMDQ0ODE1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDcvMTgvMjAyNC4wNy4xNS4yNDMxMDQwMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 14. 14.Murray RL, Brain K, Britton J, et al. Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme. BMJ Open 2020;10(9):e037086. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037086 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTAvOS9lMDM3MDg2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDcvMTgvMjAyNC4wNy4xNS4yNDMxMDQwMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 15. 15.Crosbie PA, Gabe R, Simmonds I, et al. Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk. BMJ Open 2020;10(9):e037075. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037075 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTAvOS9lMDM3MDc1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDcvMTgvMjAyNC4wNy4xNS4yNDMxMDQwMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 16. 16.Crosbie PAJ, Gabe R, Simmonds I, et al. Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Eur Respir J 2022;60(5). doi: 10.1183/13993003.00483-2022 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiI2MC81LzIyMDA0ODMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8xOC8yMDI0LjA3LjE1LjI0MzEwNDAzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 17. 17.Williams RM, Cordon M, Eyestone E, et al. Improved motivation and readiness to quit shortly after lung cancer screening: Evidence for a teachable moment. Cancer 2022;128(10):1976–86. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34133 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cncr.34133&link_type=DOI) 18. 18.Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs 1992;59(4):329–49. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/03637759209376276&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992KC34700001&link_type=ISI) 19. 19.Quinn-Scoggins HD, Murray RL, Quaife SL, et al. Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2022;22(1):478. doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-02263-w [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12890-022-02263-w&link_type=DOI) 20. 20.Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2021;374:n2061. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2061 [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNzQvc2VwMzBfNS9uMjA2MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzE4LzIwMjQuMDcuMTUuMjQzMTA0MDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 21. 21.Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258 [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNTAvbWFyMTlfNi9oMTI1OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA3LzE4LzIwMjQuMDcuMTUuMjQzMTA0MDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 22. 22.Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17(8):857–72. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<857::AID-SIM777>3.0.CO;2-E&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9595616&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F18%2F2024.07.15.24310403.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000073221800005&link_type=ISI) 23. 23.Lorencatto F, West R, Christopherson C, Michie S. Assessing fidelity of delivery of smoking cessation behavioural support in practice. Impl Sci 2013;8(1):40. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-40 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1748-5908-8-40&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F18%2F2024.07.15.24310403.atom) 24. 24.Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006;3(2);77–101. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1191/1478088706qp063oa&link_type=DOI) 25. 25.Brannen, J. Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process. Int J Soc Res Methodology 2005;8(3):73–184. doi:10.1080/13645570500154642 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/13645570500154642&link_type=DOI) 26. 26.Smith P, Quinn-Scoggins H, Murray RL et al. Barriers and Facilitators to Engaging in Smoking Cessation Support Among Lung Screening Participants. Nic Tob Res 2023;ntad245. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntad245 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ntr/ntad245&link_type=DOI) 27. 27.Murray RL, Baldwin D, Brain K, et al. Adding co-located, personalised stop smoking support to a lung cancer screening programme: The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS). British Medical Journal (Submitted) 28. 28.Vikram A, Muller c, Hulme L, Ward K. Patients’ Views on Medical Events in Lung Cancer Screening as Teachable Moments or Smoking Behaviour Change: a Systematic Review and Metasynthesis. J Smoking Cess 2023;e3. doi: 10.1155/2023/6647364 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2023/6647364&link_type=DOI) 29. 29.Tatton C, Lloyd J. Understanding for whom, under what conditions and how smoking cessation services for pregnant women in the United Kingdom work—a rapid realist review. BMC Public Health 2023;23:2488. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-17378-w [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-023-17378-w&link_type=DOI) 30. 30.National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training. Training. www.ncsct.co.uk/publications/category/training#:∼:text=NCSCT%20Mental%20Health%20Specialty%20Module&text=This%20module%20is%20intended%20for,community%20or%20a%20specialist%20setting (accessed February 26, 2024)