A Comparison of Australian Oncology Clinicians' Smoking Cessation Care Practices for People Who Currently Smoke Versus Those Who Report Recently Stopping Smoking.
Alison Luk Young, Melissa McEnallay, Fiona Day, Shalini K Vinod, Emily Stone, Sarah Morris, Elena Stefanovska, Bianca Devitt, Po Yee Yip, Craig Kukard, Abhijit Pal, Vaibhav Thawal, Gavin Wright, Alison Hofman, Heena Sareen, James McLennan, Shuet Oi Wong, Cassandra Rubio, Jennifer Liu, Alexandra Smith, Dimity Betts, Jane Mack, Jennifer Donnelly, Daniel Barker, Christine Paul
{"title":"A Comparison of Australian Oncology Clinicians' Smoking Cessation Care Practices for People Who Currently Smoke Versus Those Who Report Recently Stopping Smoking.","authors":"Alison Luk Young, Melissa McEnallay, Fiona Day, Shalini K Vinod, Emily Stone, Sarah Morris, Elena Stefanovska, Bianca Devitt, Po Yee Yip, Craig Kukard, Abhijit Pal, Vaibhav Thawal, Gavin Wright, Alison Hofman, Heena Sareen, James McLennan, Shuet Oi Wong, Cassandra Rubio, Jennifer Liu, Alexandra Smith, Dimity Betts, Jane Mack, Jennifer Donnelly, Daniel Barker, Christine Paul","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Smoking is a chronic relapsing condition that is under-reported in oncology settings. People who report current smoking (CS) and those who report recently quitting smoking (RQ) should receive cessation support when they are diagnosed with cancer. The study aimed to identify whether differences exist in the smoking cessation support given to CS and RQ in oncology and what advice is given regarding the benefits of cessation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A survey exploring smoking cessation practices was completed by oncology clinicians (medical, nursing, and allied health) at nine cancer centers in Australia. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects ordinal regression modeling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across the 177 clinicians completing the survey, the reported provision of smoking cessation care was significantly higher for CS than for RQ in relation to asking about smoking status (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, p = 0.001), advice on the benefits of quitting (OR 2.86, p = 0.001), and advice to call the Quitline (OR 5.08, p < 0.001). Exploratory analyses indicated doctors and nurse specialists were four times more likely to report referring CS to a Quitline compared to RQ (OR 4.38, p = 0.001; OR 4.29, 95%, p = 0.005, respectively). The cessation benefits that clinicians most often cited to their patients was that quitting \"can reduce the chance of developing treatment complications and side effects\".</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The relative lack of smoking cessation care provided to RQ in oncology suggests that the high risk of smoking relapse is not well-recognized. Greater awareness and training are needed regarding advising RQ about the survival-specific benefits of continuing to not smoke, offering referrals, and offering follow-up support.</p>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14153","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: Smoking is a chronic relapsing condition that is under-reported in oncology settings. People who report current smoking (CS) and those who report recently quitting smoking (RQ) should receive cessation support when they are diagnosed with cancer. The study aimed to identify whether differences exist in the smoking cessation support given to CS and RQ in oncology and what advice is given regarding the benefits of cessation.
Method: A survey exploring smoking cessation practices was completed by oncology clinicians (medical, nursing, and allied health) at nine cancer centers in Australia. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects ordinal regression modeling.
Results: Across the 177 clinicians completing the survey, the reported provision of smoking cessation care was significantly higher for CS than for RQ in relation to asking about smoking status (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, p = 0.001), advice on the benefits of quitting (OR 2.86, p = 0.001), and advice to call the Quitline (OR 5.08, p < 0.001). Exploratory analyses indicated doctors and nurse specialists were four times more likely to report referring CS to a Quitline compared to RQ (OR 4.38, p = 0.001; OR 4.29, 95%, p = 0.005, respectively). The cessation benefits that clinicians most often cited to their patients was that quitting "can reduce the chance of developing treatment complications and side effects".
Conclusion: The relative lack of smoking cessation care provided to RQ in oncology suggests that the high risk of smoking relapse is not well-recognized. Greater awareness and training are needed regarding advising RQ about the survival-specific benefits of continuing to not smoke, offering referrals, and offering follow-up support.
期刊介绍:
Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.