Strategies to address the underlying factors that may influence treatment intensity and adherence, such as comorbidities and logistical barriers, should be targeted at low-SES non-Hispanic White and all African American patients.

Background: Cannabis use is common among individuals of reproductive age. We examined publicly posted questions about perinatal cannabis use and licensed United States health care provider responses. Materials and Methods: Data were medical questions on perinatal cannabis use posted online from March 2011 to January 2017 on an anonymous digital health platform. Posters were able to ''thank'' health care providers for their responses and providers could ''agree'' with other provider responses. We characterized 364 user questions and 596 responses from 277 unique providers and examined endorsement of responses through provider ''agrees'' and user ''thanks.'' Results: The most frequent questions concerned prenatal cannabis use detection (24.7%), effects on fertility (22.6%), harms of prenatal use to the fetus (21.3%), and risks of baby exposure to cannabis through breast milk (14.4%). Provider sentiment in responses regarding the safety of perinatal cannabis use were coded as 55.6% harmful, 8.8% safe, 8.8% mixed/unsure, and 26.8% safety unaddressed. Half of providers (49.6%) discouraged perinatal cannabis use, 0.5% encouraged use, and 49.9% neither encouraged nor discouraged use. Provider responses received 1,004 provider ''agrees'' and 583 user ''thanks.'' Provider responses indicating that perinatal cannabis use is unsafe received more provider ''agrees'' than responses indicating that use is safe (B = 0.42, 95% CI 0.02-0.82, p = 0.04). User ''thanks'' did not differ by provider responses regarding safety or dis/ encouragement. Conclusion: The data indicate public interest in cannabis use effects before, during, and after pregnancy. While most health care providers indicated cannabis use during pregnancy and breastfeeding is not safe, many did not address safety or discourage use, suggesting a missed educational opportunity.

As part of a National Cancer Institute Moonshot P30 Supplement, the Stanford Cancer Center piloted and integrated tobacco treatment into cancer care. This quality improvement (QI) project reports on the process from initial pilot to adoption within 14 clinics. The Head and Neck Oncology Clinic was engaged first in January 2019 as a pilot site given staff receptivity, elevated smoking prevalence, and a high tobacco screening rate (95%) yet low levels of tobacco cessation treatment referrals (<10%) and patient engagement (<1% of smokers treated). To improve referrals and engagement, system changes included an automated “opt-out” referral process and provision of tobacco cessation treatment as a covered benefit with flexible delivery options that included phone and telemedicine. Screening rates increased to 99%, referrals to 100%, 74% of patients were reached by counselors, and 33% of those reached engaged in treatment. Patient-reported abstinence from all tobacco products at 6-month follow-up is 20%. In July 2019, two additional oncology clinics were added. In December 2019, less than one year from initiating the QI pilot, with demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy, the tobacco treatment services were integrated into 14 clinics at Stanford Cancer Center.