ObjectivesWe examined 1) changes in smoking and vaping behavior and associated cotinine levels and health status among regular smokers who were first-time e-cigarette purchasers and 2) attitudes, intentions, and restrictions regarding e-cigarettes.MethodsWe conducted a pilot longitudinal study with assessments of the aforementioned factors and salivary cotinine at weeks 0, 4, and 8. Eligibility criteria included being ≥18 years old, smoking ≥25 of the last 30 days, smoking ≥5 cigarettes per day (cpd), smoking regularly ≥1 year, and not having started using e-cigarettes. Of 72 individuals screened, 40 consented, 36 completed the baseline survey, and 83.3% and 72.2% were retained at weeks 4 and 8, respectively.ResultsParticipants reduced cigarette consumption from baseline to week 4 and 8 (p’s < 0.001); 23.1% reported no cigarette use in the past month at week 8. There was no significant decrease in cotinine from baseline to week 4 or 8 (p’s = ns). At week 8, the majority reported improved health (65.4%), reduced smoker’s cough (57.7%), and improved sense of smell (53.8%) and taste (50.0%). The majority believed that e-cigarettes versus regular cigarettes have fewer health risks (97.2%) and that e-cigarettes have been shown to help smokers quit (80.6%) and reduce cigarette consumption (97.2%). In addition, the majority intended to use e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for regular cigarettes (69.4%) and reported no restriction on e-cigarette use in the home (63.9%) or car (80.6%).ConclusionsFuture research is needed to document the long-term impact on smoking behavior and health among cigarette smokers who initiate use of e-cigarettes.
The mean PSA values at the time of diagnosis, the median percentage of biopsy involvement by cancer and the number of patients with tumours of high histological grade were comparatively high, probably reflecting the patients' relatively late clinical presentation. Established prognostic markers were predictive of the risk of death from prostate cancer.
Background The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute’s Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on ‘health equity and context’ to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions. Discussion In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity. Summary To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.
Background Title X-funded family planning clinics have been identified as optimal sites for delivery of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention. However, PrEP has not been widely integrated into family planning services, especially in the Southern US, and data suggest there may be significant implementation challenges in this setting. Because Title X clinics vary greatly in provider-, organizational-, and systems-level characteristics, there is likely variation in capacity to implement PrEP across clinics. Methods We conducted a survey from February to June 2018 among providers and administrators of non-PrEP-providing Title X-funded clinics across 18 southern states. Survey items were designed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to assess constructs relevant to PrEP implementation. To explore the heterogeneity of CFIR-related implementation determinants and identify distinct sub-groups of Title X clinics, a latent profile analysis was conducted using nine CFIR constructs: complexity, relative advantage, cost, attitudes, implementation climate, compatibility, leadership engagement, available resources, and cosmopolitanism. We then conducted a multi-level analysis (accounting for nesting of participants within clinics) to test whether group membership was associated with readiness for implementation of PrEP, controlling for key sociodemographic characteristics. Results Four hundred and fourteen healthcare providers/administrators from 227 non-PrEP-providing Title X clinics participated in the study. We identified six sub-groups of clinics that each had distinct patterns of PrEP implementation determinants. Clinic sub-groups included “Highest Capacity for Implementation”, “Favorable Conditions for Implementation”, “Mixed Implementation Context”, “Neutral Implementation Context”, “Incompatible Setting for Implementation”, and “Resource-Strained Setting”. Group membership was related to numerous provider-level (i.e., ability to prescribe medication) and clinic-level (i.e., provision of primary care) characteristics. In comparison to the “Neutral” group (which held neutral perceptions across the implementation determinants), the “Highest Capacity” and “Favorable Conditions” groups had significantly higher levels of implementation readiness, and the “Resource-Strained” group had a significantly lower level of implementation readiness. Conclusions Latent profile analyses can help researchers understand how implementation readiness varies across healthcare settings, promoting tailoring of implementation strategies to unique contexts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.