Vani N Simmons1,2,3,4, Steven K Sutton2,3,5, Lauren R Meltzer1, Ursula Martinez1,2, Amanda M Palmer1,3, Cathy D Meade1,2,6, Paul B Jacobsen7, Judith C McCaffrey8,9, Eric B Haura4, Thomas H Brandon1,2,3,4. 1. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 2. Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 3. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 4. Department of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 6. Department of Nursing, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 7. Healthcare Delivery Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 8. Department of Otolaryngology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 9. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abstaining from smoking after a cancer diagnosis is critical to mitigating the risk of multiple adverse health outcomes. Although many patients with cancer attempt to quit smoking, the majority relapse. The current randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of adapting an evidence-based smoking relapse prevention (SRP) intervention for patients with cancer. METHODS: The trial enrolled 412 patients newly diagnosed with cancer who had recently quit smoking. Participants were randomized to usual care (UC) or SRP. Participants in the UC group received the institution's standard of care for treating tobacco use. Participants in the SRP group in addition received a targeted educational DVD plus a validated self-help intervention for preventing smoking relapse. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence at 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS:Abstinence rates for participants in the SRP and UC groups were 75% versus 71% at 2 months and 69% versus 64% at 6 months (Ps > .20). At 12 months, abstinence rates among survivors were 68% for those in the SRP group and 63% for those in the UC group (P = .38). Post hoc analyses revealed that across 2 months and 6 months, patients who were married/partnered were more likely to be abstinent after SRP than UC (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: A smoking relapse prevention intervention did not reduce relapse rates overall, but did appear to have benefited those participants who had the social support of a partner. Future work is needed to extend this effect to the larger population of patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Abstaining from smoking after a cancer diagnosis is critical to mitigating the risk of multiple adverse health outcomes. Although many patients with cancer attempt to quit smoking, the majority relapse. The current randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of adapting an evidence-based smoking relapse prevention (SRP) intervention for patients with cancer. METHODS: The trial enrolled 412 patients newly diagnosed with cancer who had recently quit smoking. Participants were randomized to usual care (UC) or SRP. Participants in the UC group received the institution's standard of care for treating tobacco use. Participants in the SRP group in addition received a targeted educational DVD plus a validated self-help intervention for preventing smoking relapse. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence at 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS: Abstinence rates for participants in the SRP and UC groups were 75% versus 71% at 2 months and 69% versus 64% at 6 months (Ps > .20). At 12 months, abstinence rates among survivors were 68% for those in the SRP group and 63% for those in the UC group (P = .38). Post hoc analyses revealed that across 2 months and 6 months, patients who were married/partnered were more likely to be abstinent after SRP than UC (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: A smoking relapse prevention intervention did not reduce relapse rates overall, but did appear to have benefited those participants who had the social support of a partner. Future work is needed to extend this effect to the larger population of patients.
Authors: Paschal Sheeran; Katelyn Jones; Aya Avishai; Yael R Symes; Charles Abraham; Eleanor Miles; Charles E Wright; Deborah K Mayer; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Lauren R Meltzer; Cathy D Meade; Diana B Diaz; Monica S Carrington; Thomas H Brandon; Paul B Jacobsen; Judith C McCaffrey; Eric B Haura; Vani N Simmons Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: J Lee Westmaas; Christina C Newton; Victoria L Stevens; W Dana Flanders; Susan M Gapstur; Eric J Jacobs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas H Brandon; Vani Nath Simmons; Cathy D Meade; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Elena N Lopez Khoury; Steven K Sutton; Ji-Hyun Lee Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jonathan Livingstone-Banks; Emma Norris; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce; Robert West; Martin Jarvis; Peter Hajek Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-02-13
Authors: Mark S Walker; Damon J Vidrine; Ellen R Gritz; Randy J Larsen; Yan Yan; Ramaswamy Govindan; Edwin B Fisher Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Paul M Cinciripini; Maher Karam-Hage; George Kypriotakis; Jason D Robinson; Vance Rabius; Diane Beneventi; Jennifer A Minnix; Janice A Blalock Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-09-04
Authors: Laura B Oswald; Naomi C Brownstein; Junmin Whiting; Aasha I Hoogland; Sabrina Saravia; Kedar Kirtane; Christine H Chung; Christine Vinci; Brian D Gonzalez; Peter A S Johnstone; Heather S L Jim Journal: Oncologist Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Sarah R Jones; Damon J Vidrine; David W Wetter; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven K Sutton; Lois M Ramondetta; Linda S Elting; Joan L Walker; Katie M Smith; Summer G Frank-Pearce; Yisheng Li; Vani N Simmons; Jennifer I Vidrine Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-12-30