Implementation strategies for integrating tobacco cessation treatment in cancer care: A qualitative study.

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-06 DOI:10.1177/26334895221112153
Jennifer H LeLaurin, Ryan P Theis, Jesse Dallery, Natalie L Silver, Merry-Jennifer Markham, Stephanie A Staras, Chengguo Xing, Elizabeth A Shenkman, Graham W Warren, Ramzi G Salloum
{"title":"Implementation strategies for integrating tobacco cessation treatment in cancer care: A qualitative study.","authors":"Jennifer H LeLaurin, Ryan P Theis, Jesse Dallery, Natalie L Silver, Merry-Jennifer Markham, Stephanie A Staras, Chengguo Xing, Elizabeth A Shenkman, Graham W Warren, Ramzi G Salloum","doi":"10.1177/26334895221112153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this study was to determine how to optimize implementation of tobacco cessation treatment interventions in cancer care by (1) investigating the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-level approach to tobacco cessation treatment intervention, (2) identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (3) eliciting additional strategies to improve implementation of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative interviews with oncologists (<i>n</i> = 15) from one large academic health center in the Southeastern United States. We asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and current practices regarding tobacco use screening and treatment. We also asked about two proposed strategies to support implementation of tobacco cessation treatment: (1) developing a registry of tobacco users in collaboration with the state-run tobacco cessation program, and (2) providing on-site tobacco cessation counseling from trained professionals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Oncologists saw addressing tobacco use as valuable; however, they felt restricted from consistently addressing tobacco use by multi-level barriers such as workload, electronic health record (EHR) design, patient anxiety, and low self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence. Oncologists responded positively to on-site treatment and felt this strategy would increase treatment accessibility and enhance engagement. Reaction to developing a registry of tobacco users was mixed, with concerns regarding lack of oncologist involvement and patient privacy expressed. Other suggested strategies for supporting implementation of tobacco cessation treatment included reducing referral complexity, establishing financial or quality incentives for oncologists, and leveraging existing EHR tools to facilitate integration of cessation interventions into clinic workflows.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified several challenges to implementing tobacco use treatment in cancer care; however, we considered strategies to overcome these barriers that were viewed as feasible and acceptable. Our work highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders in implementation efforts. Future work should explore the impact of the implementation strategies identified in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/98/9a/10.1177_26334895221112153.PMC9924274.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221112153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to determine how to optimize implementation of tobacco cessation treatment interventions in cancer care by (1) investigating the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-level approach to tobacco cessation treatment intervention, (2) identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (3) eliciting additional strategies to improve implementation of the intervention.

Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with oncologists (n = 15) from one large academic health center in the Southeastern United States. We asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and current practices regarding tobacco use screening and treatment. We also asked about two proposed strategies to support implementation of tobacco cessation treatment: (1) developing a registry of tobacco users in collaboration with the state-run tobacco cessation program, and (2) providing on-site tobacco cessation counseling from trained professionals.

Results: Oncologists saw addressing tobacco use as valuable; however, they felt restricted from consistently addressing tobacco use by multi-level barriers such as workload, electronic health record (EHR) design, patient anxiety, and low self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence. Oncologists responded positively to on-site treatment and felt this strategy would increase treatment accessibility and enhance engagement. Reaction to developing a registry of tobacco users was mixed, with concerns regarding lack of oncologist involvement and patient privacy expressed. Other suggested strategies for supporting implementation of tobacco cessation treatment included reducing referral complexity, establishing financial or quality incentives for oncologists, and leveraging existing EHR tools to facilitate integration of cessation interventions into clinic workflows.

Conclusion: We identified several challenges to implementing tobacco use treatment in cancer care; however, we considered strategies to overcome these barriers that were viewed as feasible and acceptable. Our work highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders in implementation efforts. Future work should explore the impact of the implementation strategies identified in this study.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将戒烟治疗纳入癌症护理的实施策略:一项定性研究。
目的:本研究的目的是通过(1)调查多层次戒烟治疗干预方法的可行性和可接受性,(2)确定实施的障碍和促进因素,以及(3)引出额外的战略来改进干预措施的实施。方法:我们对美国东南部一家大型学术健康中心的肿瘤学家(n=15)进行了定性访谈。我们询问了他们在烟草使用筛查和治疗方面的知识、态度和当前做法。我们还询问了支持实施戒烟治疗的两种拟议策略:(1)与国家戒烟计划合作,建立烟草使用者登记册;(2)由受过培训的专业人员提供现场戒烟咨询。结果:肿瘤学家认为解决烟草使用问题很有价值;然而,他们感到,由于工作量、电子健康记录(EHR)设计、患者焦虑和治疗烟草依赖的低自我效能等多层次障碍,他们无法持续解决烟草使用问题。肿瘤学家对现场治疗反应积极,认为这一策略将增加治疗的可及性并提高参与度。对建立烟草使用者登记册的反应不一,对缺乏肿瘤学家的参与和患者隐私表示担忧。其他建议的支持实施戒烟治疗的战略包括降低转诊的复杂性,为肿瘤学家制定财政或质量激励措施,以及利用现有的EHR工具促进将戒烟干预纳入临床工作流程。结论:我们确定了在癌症护理中实施烟草使用治疗的几个挑战;然而,我们考虑了克服这些障碍的战略,这些战略被认为是可行和可接受的。我们的工作强调了让利益攸关方参与执行工作的重要性。今后的工作应探讨本研究中确定的实施战略的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Calculating power for multilevel implementation trials in mental health: Meaningful effect sizes, intraclass correlation coefficients, and proportions of variance explained by covariates. Preparation for implementation of evidence-based practices in urban schools: A shared process with implementing partners. Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial. Examining implementation determinants of a culturally grounded, school-based prevention curriculum in rural Hawai'i: A test development and validation study. Applying the resource management principle to achieve community engagement and experimental rigor in the multiphase optimization strategy framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1