Identifying Best Implementation Practices for Smoking Cessation in Complex Cancer Settings.
cancer
implementation
intervention
quality improvement
realist evaluation
smoking cessation
Journal
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 01 2021
13 01 2021
Historique:
received:
27
11
2020
revised:
06
01
2021
accepted:
08
01
2021
entrez:
16
1
2021
pubmed:
17
1
2021
medline:
25
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. Findings highlight factors that may influence successful SCI implementation.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33451147
pii: curroncol28010049
doi: 10.3390/curroncol28010049
pmc: PMC7903270
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
471-484Références
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Aug;138:265-8
pubmed: 26032734
BMC Pediatr. 2018 Mar 15;18(1):113
pubmed: 29544462
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Sep;1(6):807-13
pubmed: 26226181
J Adv Nurs. 2013 Apr;69(4):915-26
pubmed: 22765639
Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2015 Apr;19(2):170-5
pubmed: 25840382
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jan 22;16:63
pubmed: 26801402
Cancer Med. 2018 Sep;7(9):4765-4772
pubmed: 30019421
J Thorac Oncol. 2013 May;8(5):543-8
pubmed: 23529191
Am J Prev Med. 2008 Aug;35(2):158-76
pubmed: 18617085
J Oncol Pract. 2015 May;11(3):e288-95
pubmed: 25852142
Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 14;7:17
pubmed: 22417162
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 20;6(9):e012296
pubmed: 27650767
J Oncol Pract. 2018 May;14(5):e269-e279
pubmed: 29676948
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Dec;18(12):2216-2224
pubmed: 27613928
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015 Jan 29;9:209-15
pubmed: 25678779
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):246-250
pubmed: 28011595
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009 Nov 14;2009:158-62
pubmed: 20351841
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 May-Jun;15(3):386-9
pubmed: 18308994
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 23;13(1):36
pubmed: 29475440
Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2014 Jan 24;9:1
pubmed: 24460974
Prev Med Rep. 2016 Mar 04;3:229-33
pubmed: 27419019
Nurs Adm Q. 2010 Jan-Mar;34(1):72-82
pubmed: 20023564
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Apr 15;19(8):1941-8
pubmed: 23570694
J Oncol Pract. 2009 Jan;5(1):6-9
pubmed: 20856708
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 May 21;10(5):2069-83
pubmed: 23698699
Cancer Causes Control. 2013 Jul;24(7):1339-46
pubmed: 23605220
Tob Control. 2011 Jan;20(1):40-6
pubmed: 21030529
BMC Cancer. 2017 May 19;17(1):348
pubmed: 28526000
Implement Sci. 2015 Jun 18;10:91
pubmed: 26084798
Can J Public Health. 2019 Feb;110(1):21-30
pubmed: 30536207
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2019 May;8(Suppl 1):S11-S20
pubmed: 31211102
Mil Med. 2006 Jan;171(1):80-7
pubmed: 16532880
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Feb 15;179(4):403-12
pubmed: 24436362
Health Promot Pract. 2011 Sep;12(5):645-50
pubmed: 21859901
Curr Oncol. 2017 Jun;24(3):e185-e190
pubmed: 28680285
Implement Sci. 2014 Sep 05;9:115
pubmed: 25190100
Prev Med. 2011 Dec;53(6):433-4
pubmed: 22001686
Tob Induc Dis. 2017 Nov 2;15:41
pubmed: 29142531
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jan;86(1):49-56
pubmed: 21612884