Haval Balata1, Liam Traverse-Healy2, Sean Blandin-Knight3, Christopher Armitage4, Philip Barber3, Denis Colligan5, Peter Elton6, Marie Kirwan7, Judith Lyons3, Lorna McWilliams8, Juliette Novasio7, Anna Sharman9, Kathryn Slevin7, Sarah Taylor5, Janet Tonge5, Sara Waplington7, Janelle Yorke8, Matthew Evison3, Richard Booton3, Philip A J Crosbie10. 1. Manchester Thoracic Oncology Centre, North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, UK. Electronic address: haval.balata@mft.nhs.uk. 2. University of Manchester Medical School, Manchester, UK. 3. Manchester Thoracic Oncology Centre, North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, UK. 4. Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 5. Manchester Health and Care Commissioning, Manchester, UK. 6. Greater Manchester Health & Social Care Partnership, Manchester, UK. 7. Thoracic Oncology Research Hub (TORCH), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, UK. 8. Christie Patient Centred Research, Division of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 9. Department of Radiology, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, UK. 10. Manchester Thoracic Oncology Centre, North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, UK; Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking is unclear, especially in deprived populations who are underrepresented in screening trials. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether a community-based lung cancer screening programme influenced smoking behaviour and smoking attitude in socio-economically deprived populations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ever-smokers, age 55-74, registered at participating General Practices were invited to a community-based Lung Health Check (LHC). This included an assessment of respiratory symptoms, lung cancer risk (PLCOm2012), spirometry and signposting to stop smoking services. Those at high risk (PLCOM2012≥1.51%) were offered annual low-dose CT screening over two rounds. Self-reported smoking status and behaviour were recorded at the LHC and again 12 months later, when attitudes to smoking were also assessed. RESULTS: 919 participants (51% women) were included in the analysis (77% of attendees); median deprivation rank in the lowest decile for England. At baseline 50.3% were current smokers. One-year quit rate was 10.2%, quitting was associated with increased baseline symptoms (adjOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.07-6.41; p = 0.035) but not demographics or screening results. 55% attributed quitting to the LHC. In current smokers, 44% reported the LHC had made them consider stopping, 29% it made them try to stop and 25% made them smoke less whilst only 1.7% and 0.7% said it made them worry less about smoking or think it acceptable to smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a community-based lung cancer screening programme in deprived areas positively impacts smoking behaviour, with no evidence of a 'licence to smoke' in those screened.
OBJECTIVES: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking is unclear, especially in deprived populations who are underrepresented in screening trials. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether a community-based lung cancer screening programme influenced smoking behaviour and smoking attitude in socio-economically deprived populations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ever-smokers, age 55-74, registered at participating General Practices were invited to a community-based Lung Health Check (LHC). This included an assessment of respiratory symptoms, lung cancer risk (PLCOm2012), spirometry and signposting to stop smoking services. Those at high risk (PLCOM2012≥1.51%) were offered annual low-dose CT screening over two rounds. Self-reported smoking status and behaviour were recorded at the LHC and again 12 months later, when attitudes to smoking were also assessed. RESULTS: 919 participants (51% women) were included in the analysis (77% of attendees); median deprivation rank in the lowest decile for England. At baseline 50.3% were current smokers. One-year quit rate was 10.2%, quitting was associated with increased baseline symptoms (adjOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.07-6.41; p = 0.035) but not demographics or screening results. 55% attributed quitting to the LHC. In current smokers, 44% reported the LHC had made them consider stopping, 29% it made them try to stop and 25% made them smoke less whilst only 1.7% and 0.7% said it made them worry less about smoking or think it acceptable to smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a community-based lung cancer screening programme in deprived areas positively impacts smoking behaviour, with no evidence of a 'licence to smoke' in those screened.
Authors: Randi M Williams; Marisa Cordon; Ellie Eyestone; Laney Smith; George Luta; Brady J McKee; Shawn M Regis; David B Abrams; Raymond S Niaura; Cassandra A Stanton; Vicky Parikh; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Samantha Groves; Grace McCutchan; Samantha L Quaife; Rachael L Murray; Jamie S Ostroff; Kate Brain; Philip A J Crosbie; Janelle Yorke; David Baldwin; John K Field; Lorna McWilliams Journal: Health Expect Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Sara E Golden; Liana Schweiger; Anne C Melzer; Sarah S Ono; Santanu Datta; James M Davis; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-10-05