RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 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
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.07.15.24310403
DO 10.1101/2024.07.15.24310403
A1 McCutchan, G
A1 Quinn-Scoggins, HD
A1 Tong, H
A1 Smith, P
A1 Quaife, SL
A1 Callister, MEJ
A1 Thorley, R
A1 Baldwin, DR
A1 Beeken, RJ
A1 Copeland, H
A1 Crosbie, PAJ
A1 Lewis, S
A1 Rogerson, S
A1 Wu, Q
A1 Murray, RL
A1 Brain, K
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/18/2024.07.15.24310403.abstract
AB 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/NCT03750110What is already known on the topicIntegrated 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 addsWe 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.Competing Interest StatementRT, 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 interestClinical TrialNCT03750110Clinical Protocols https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037086 Funding StatementThis work was funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research (award references L403 and NOT414). 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).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was granted by the Health Research Authority, East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/2019).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData 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.