A randomised controlled trial testing acceptance of practitioner-referral versus self-referral to stop smoking services within the Lung Screen Uptake Trial
© 2023 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction..
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimising smoking cessation (SC) referral strategies within lung cancer screening (LCS) could significantly reduce lung cancer mortality. This study aimed to measure acceptance of referral to SC support by either practitioner-referral or self-referral among participants attending a hospital-based lung health check appointment for LCS as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial.
DESIGN: Single-blinded two-arm randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: England.
PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred forty-two individuals ages 60 to 75 years, who self-reported currently smoking or had a carbon monoxide reading over 10 ppm during the lung health check appointment.
INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either a contact information card for self-referral to a local stop smoking service (SSS) (self-referral, n = 360) or a SSS referral made on their behalf by the nurse or trial practitioner (practitioner-referral, n = 329).
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was acceptance of the practitioner-referral (defined as participants giving permission for their details to be shared with the local SSS) compared with acceptance of the self-referral (defined as participants taking the physical SSS contact information card to refer themselves to the local SSS).
FINDINGS: Half (49.8%) accepted the practitioner-made referral to a local SSS, whereas most (88.5%) accepted the self-referral. The odds of accepting the practitioner-referral were statistically significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval = 0.06-0.17) than the self- referral. In analyses stratified by group, greater quit confidence, quit attempts and Black ethnicity were associated with increased acceptance within the practitioner-referral group. There were no statistically significant interactions between acceptance by referral group and any of the participants' demographic or smoking characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: Among participants in hospital-based lung cancer screening in England who self-reported smoking or met a carbon monoxide cut-off, both practitioner-referral and self-referral smoking cessation strategies were highly accepted. Although self-referral was more frequently accepted, prior evidence suggests practitioner-referrals increase quit attempts, suggesting practitioner-referrals should be the first-line strategy within lung cancer screening, with self-referral offered as an alternative.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:118 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Addiction (Abingdon, England) - 118(2023), 10 vom: 06. Okt., Seite 2007-2013 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Kotti, Theodora [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
7U1EE4V452 |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 07.09.2023 Date Revised 22.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/add.16269 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM358332745 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM358332745 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240323000028.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/add.16269 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1341.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM358332745 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37331722 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kotti, Theodora |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A randomised controlled trial testing acceptance of practitioner-referral versus self-referral to stop smoking services within the Lung Screen Uptake Trial |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 07.09.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 22.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimising smoking cessation (SC) referral strategies within lung cancer screening (LCS) could significantly reduce lung cancer mortality. This study aimed to measure acceptance of referral to SC support by either practitioner-referral or self-referral among participants attending a hospital-based lung health check appointment for LCS as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial | ||
| 520 | |a DESIGN: Single-blinded two-arm randomised controlled trial | ||
| 520 | |a SETTING: England | ||
| 520 | |a PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred forty-two individuals ages 60 to 75 years, who self-reported currently smoking or had a carbon monoxide reading over 10 ppm during the lung health check appointment | ||
| 520 | |a INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either a contact information card for self-referral to a local stop smoking service (SSS) (self-referral, n = 360) or a SSS referral made on their behalf by the nurse or trial practitioner (practitioner-referral, n = 329) | ||
| 520 | |a MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was acceptance of the practitioner-referral (defined as participants giving permission for their details to be shared with the local SSS) compared with acceptance of the self-referral (defined as participants taking the physical SSS contact information card to refer themselves to the local SSS) | ||
| 520 | |a FINDINGS: Half (49.8%) accepted the practitioner-made referral to a local SSS, whereas most (88.5%) accepted the self-referral. The odds of accepting the practitioner-referral were statistically significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval = 0.06-0.17) than the self- referral. In analyses stratified by group, greater quit confidence, quit attempts and Black ethnicity were associated with increased acceptance within the practitioner-referral group. There were no statistically significant interactions between acceptance by referral group and any of the participants' demographic or smoking characteristics | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Among participants in hospital-based lung cancer screening in England who self-reported smoking or met a carbon monoxide cut-off, both practitioner-referral and self-referral smoking cessation strategies were highly accepted. Although self-referral was more frequently accepted, prior evidence suggests practitioner-referrals increase quit attempts, suggesting practitioner-referrals should be the first-line strategy within lung cancer screening, with self-referral offered as an alternative | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Randomized Controlled Trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a lung cancer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a opt out | |
| 650 | 4 | |a prevention | |
| 650 | 4 | |a referral | |
| 650 | 4 | |a screening | |
| 650 | 4 | |a smoking cessation | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Carbon Monoxide |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 7U1EE4V452 |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Katsampouris, Evangelos |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ruparel, Mamta |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McEwen, Andy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dickson, Jennifer L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Duffy, Stephen W |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Waller, Jo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Janes, Samuel M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Quaife, Samantha L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Addiction (Abingdon, England) |d 1993 |g 118(2023), 10 vom: 06. Okt., Seite 2007-2013 |w (DE-627)NLM075102978 |x 1360-0443 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:118 |g year:2023 |g number:10 |g day:06 |g month:10 |g pages:2007-2013 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.16269 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 118 |j 2023 |e 10 |b 06 |c 10 |h 2007-2013 | ||