Objective We examined correlates of continued smoking versus cessation among a sample of survivors of smoking-related cancers who were actively smoking at the time of cancer diagnosis. Methods Participants with a history of smoking and a smoking-related cancer diagnosis (lung, oral, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, bladder, stomach, cervix, kidney, pancreas, acute myeloid leukemia) within the past four years were identified in the electronic medical record. We recruited 613 individuals to complete a mail-based survey and received 139 completed surveys (22.7% response rate). We focused on 105 participants who smoked at the time of diagnosis and dichotomized them to having either quit since diagnosis (48.6%; n=51) or continued smoking (51.4%; n=54). We assessed sociodemographics, type of cancer and treatment(s), and psychosocial factors (depressive symptoms, social support, hope, quality of life). We then conducted structured interviews with a subset of 21 survey respondents. Results Binary logistic regression indicated that, controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, and income, factors associated with continued smoking versus cessation included being diagnosed with other smoking-related cancers versus lung or head and neck cancer (OR=11.21, CI 2.85, 44.02) and having significant depressive symptoms (OR=1.25, CI 1.08, 1.45). Qualitative findings highlighted motivators for cessation (impact of being diagnosed with cancer, doctor advice to quit, social influences) and barriers to cessation (hopelessness, stress, addiction). Conclusions These findings highlight the need to address depressive symptoms among cancer survivors, particularly those continuing to smoke, and the importance of exploring messages cancer survivors are given regarding the need for cessation post cancer diagnosis.

Background: Despite the high prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs), in 2016, only 7.8% of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria received any type of AUD treatment. Developing options for treatment within primary care settings is imperative to increase treatment access. As part of a trial to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings, this qualitative study analyzed pre-implementation provider interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify implementation barriers. Methods: Three large Veterans Health Administration facilities participated in the implementation intervention. Local providers were trained to serve as implementation/clinical champions and received external facilitation from the project team. Primary care providers received a dashboard of patients with AUD for case identification, educational materials, and access to consultation from clinical champions. Veterans with AUD diagnoses received educational information in the mail. Prior to the start of implementation activities, 24 primary care providers (5-10 per site) participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using common coding techniques for qualitative data using the CFIR codebook Innovation/Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals domains. Number and type of barriers identified were compared to quantitative changes in AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rates. Results: Four major barriers emerged across all three sites: complexity of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care, the limited compatibility of AUD treatment with existing primary care processes, providers' limited knowledge and negative beliefs about AUD pharmacotherapy and providers' negative attitudes toward patients with AUD. Site specific barriers included lack of relative advantage of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care over current practice, complaints about the design quality and packaging of implementation intervention materials, limited priority of addressing AUD in primary care and limited available resources to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care. Conclusions: CFIR constructs were useful for identifying pre-implementation barriers that informed refinements to the implementation intervention. The number and type of pre-implementation barriers identified did not

We aimed to qualitatively examine differences in perceptions of addiction, attempts to quit, and successful quitting among nondaily versus daily college student smokers. We conducted 16 focus groups with a total of 73 college student smokers from the southeastern U.S. Focus groups were homogenous in terms of gender, smoking status (nondaily, daily), and type of school (2-year college, 4-year university). Questions centered on perceptions of addiction, their own addiction, what constitutes a quit attempt, and successful quitting. Themes that emerged among all smokers regarding conceptualization of general addiction included physiological and psychological dependence and an inability to quit smoking. In terms of their own addiction, nondaily smokers referenced their ability to quit and sense of choice to smoke as factors indicating a lack of addiction, whereas daily smokers reported dependence symptoms and their inability to control their smoking indicating addiction. Nondaily smokers discussed quit attempts in terms of making the decision to quit and avoiding situational triggers, whereas daily smokers reported taking more behavioral steps toward cessation (e.g., not buying cigarettes, reducing cigarette consumption). With regard to successful cessation, both groups identified losing the desire to smoke as a hallmark. However, nondaily smokers reported that the decision to quit might constitute successful cessation; daily smokers had more strict behavioral criteria such as abstinence for an extended period of time. The different perceptions of one’s own addiction, attempting to quit smoking, and successful quitting suggest the need to improve assessments of these factors, particularly among nondaily smokers.

BackgroundSpecial events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening.MethodsArticles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers.ResultsOf the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50–1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening.ConclusionsSpecial events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

Objective To examine factors associated with perceiving different types of pictorial cigarette health warning labels as most effective in motivating smokers to quit or preventing smoking initiation among college students. Method We administered an online survey to 24,055 students attending six Southeast colleges in Fall, 2010. We obtained complete data for the current analyses from 2,600. Results Current smoking prevalence was 23.5%. The largest majority (78.6%) consistently rated gruesome images as most effective, 19.5% rated testimonial images as most effective, and only a small proportion rated either standard (1.6%) or human suffering images (0.3%) as most effective. Subsequent analyses focused on differences between those endorsing gruesome images or testimonials as most effective. Factors related to ranking testimonials versus gruesome images as most effective included being female (p<0.01), White (p<0.01), and nonsmokers (p=0.04), lower perceived smoking prevalence (p<0.01), and greater receptivity to laws/restrictions around smoking (p<0.01) and tobacco marketing (p=0.01). Among smokers, factors related to ranking testimonials as most effective versus gruesome images included being female (p=0.03), being White (p=0.03), higher autonomous motivation (p=0.03), and greater extrinsic self-efficacy (p=0.02). Conclusions Understanding factors related to perceived effectiveness of different pictorial warnings among subpopulations should inform health warning labels released by the FDA.