» Articles » PMID: 33451147

Identifying Best Implementation Practices for Smoking Cessation in Complex Cancer Settings

Overview
Journal Curr Oncol
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Oncology
Date 2021 Jan 16
PMID 33451147
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: In response to evidence about the health benefits of smoking cessation at time of cancer diagnosis, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) (OH-CCO) instructed Regional Cancer Centres (RCC) to implement smoking cessation interventions (SCI). RCCs were given flexibility to implement SCIs according to their context but were required to screen new patients for tobacco status, advise patients about the importance of quitting, and refer patients to cessation supports. The purpose of this evaluation was to identify practices that influenced successful implementation across RCCs.

Methods: A realist evaluation approach was employed. Realist evaluations examine how underlying processes of an intervention (mechanisms) in specific settings (contexts) interact to produce results (outcomes). A realist evaluation may thus help to generate an understanding of what may or may not work across contexts.

Results: The RCCs with the highest Tobacco Screening Rates used a centralized system. Regarding the process for advising and referring, three RCCs offered robust smoking cessation training, resulting in advice and referral rates between 80% and 100%. Five RCCs surpassed the target for Accepted Referral Rates; acceptance rates for internal referral were highest overall.

Conclusion: Findings highlight factors that may influence successful SCI implementation.

Citing Articles

Evolution of a Systematic Approach to Smoking Cessation in Ontario's Regional Cancer Centres.

Cameron E, Lee V, Rana S, Haque M, Schwartz N, Khan S Curr Oncol. 2022; 29(7):4604-4611.

PMID: 35877225 PMC: 9323297. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29070365.


Overcoming "Cessation Stasis": The Need to Address Inertia.

Pipe A J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021; 114(3):338-339.

PMID: 34850035 PMC: 8902325. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab209.

References
1.
Hawe P . Minimal, negligible and negligent interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2015; 138:265-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.025. View

2.
Willis C, Reid S, Elliott C, Rosenberg M, Nyquist A, Jahnsen R . A realist evaluation of a physical activity participation intervention for children and youth with disabilities: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how?. BMC Pediatr. 2018; 18(1):113. PMC: 5856004. DOI: 10.1186/s12887-018-1089-8. View

3.
Goffin J, Flanagan W, Miller A, Fitzgerald N, Memon S, Wolfson M . Cost-effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening in Canada. JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1(6):807-13. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2472. View

4.
Williams L, Burton C, Rycroft-Malone J . What works: a realist evaluation case study of intermediaries in infection control practice. J Adv Nurs. 2012; 69(4):915-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06084.x. View

5.
Wippold R, Karam-Hage M, Blalock J, Cinciripini P . Selection of optimal tobacco cessation medication treatment in patients with cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2015; 19(2):170-5. PMC: 6029249. DOI: 10.1188/15.CJON.170-175. View