Alison Luk Young, Melissa McEnallay, Fiona Day, Shalini K. Vinod, Emily Stone, Sarah Morris, Elena Stefanovska, Bianca Devitt, Po Yee Yip, Craig Kukard, Abhijit Pal, Vaibhav Thawal, Gavin Wright, Alison Hofman, Heena Sareen, James McLennan, Shuet Oi Wong, Cassandra Rubio, Jennifer Liu, Alexandra Smith, Dimity Betts, Jane Mack, Jennifer Donnelly, Daniel Barker, Christine Paul
{"title":"澳大利亚肿瘤临床医生对目前吸烟的人与最近报告戒烟的人的戒烟护理实践的比较。","authors":"Alison Luk Young, Melissa McEnallay, Fiona Day, Shalini K. Vinod, Emily Stone, Sarah Morris, Elena Stefanovska, Bianca Devitt, Po Yee Yip, Craig Kukard, Abhijit Pal, Vaibhav Thawal, Gavin Wright, Alison Hofman, Heena Sareen, James McLennan, Shuet Oi Wong, Cassandra Rubio, Jennifer Liu, Alexandra Smith, Dimity Betts, Jane Mack, Jennifer Donnelly, Daniel Barker, Christine Paul","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Smoking is a chronic relapsing condition that is under-reported in oncology settings. People who report current smoking (CS) and those who report recently quitting smoking (RQ) should receive cessation support when they are diagnosed with cancer. The study aimed to identify whether differences exist in the smoking cessation support given to CS and RQ in oncology and what advice is given regarding the benefits of cessation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>A survey exploring smoking cessation practices was completed by oncology clinicians (medical, nursing, and allied health) at nine cancer centers in Australia. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects ordinal regression modeling.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Across the 177 clinicians completing the survey, the reported provision of smoking cessation care was significantly higher for CS than for RQ in relation to asking about smoking status (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, <i>p</i> = 0.001), advice on the benefits of quitting (OR 2.86, <i>p</i> = 0.001), and advice to call the Quitline (OR 5.08, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Exploratory analyses indicated doctors and nurse specialists were four times more likely to report referring CS to a Quitline compared to RQ (OR 4.38, <i>p</i> = 0.001; OR 4.29, 95%, <i>p</i> = 0.005, respectively). The cessation benefits that clinicians most often cited to their patients was that quitting “can reduce the chance of developing treatment complications and side effects”.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The relative lack of smoking cessation care provided to RQ in oncology suggests that the high risk of smoking relapse is not well-recognized. Greater awareness and training are needed regarding advising RQ about the survival-specific benefits of continuing to not smoke, offering referrals, and offering follow-up support.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":"21 4","pages":"368-376"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajco.14153","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Australian Oncology Clinicians' Smoking Cessation Care Practices for People Who Currently Smoke Versus Those Who Report Recently Stopping Smoking\",\"authors\":\"Alison Luk Young, Melissa McEnallay, Fiona Day, Shalini K. Vinod, Emily Stone, Sarah Morris, Elena Stefanovska, Bianca Devitt, Po Yee Yip, Craig Kukard, Abhijit Pal, Vaibhav Thawal, Gavin Wright, Alison Hofman, Heena Sareen, James McLennan, Shuet Oi Wong, Cassandra Rubio, Jennifer Liu, Alexandra Smith, Dimity Betts, Jane Mack, Jennifer Donnelly, Daniel Barker, Christine Paul\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajco.14153\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Smoking is a chronic relapsing condition that is under-reported in oncology settings. People who report current smoking (CS) and those who report recently quitting smoking (RQ) should receive cessation support when they are diagnosed with cancer. The study aimed to identify whether differences exist in the smoking cessation support given to CS and RQ in oncology and what advice is given regarding the benefits of cessation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>A survey exploring smoking cessation practices was completed by oncology clinicians (medical, nursing, and allied health) at nine cancer centers in Australia. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects ordinal regression modeling.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Across the 177 clinicians completing the survey, the reported provision of smoking cessation care was significantly higher for CS than for RQ in relation to asking about smoking status (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, <i>p</i> = 0.001), advice on the benefits of quitting (OR 2.86, <i>p</i> = 0.001), and advice to call the Quitline (OR 5.08, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Exploratory analyses indicated doctors and nurse specialists were four times more likely to report referring CS to a Quitline compared to RQ (OR 4.38, <i>p</i> = 0.001; OR 4.29, 95%, <i>p</i> = 0.005, respectively). The cessation benefits that clinicians most often cited to their patients was that quitting “can reduce the chance of developing treatment complications and side effects”.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The relative lack of smoking cessation care provided to RQ in oncology suggests that the high risk of smoking relapse is not well-recognized. Greater awareness and training are needed regarding advising RQ about the survival-specific benefits of continuing to not smoke, offering referrals, and offering follow-up support.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology\",\"volume\":\"21 4\",\"pages\":\"368-376\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajco.14153\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajco.14153\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajco.14153","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:吸烟是一种慢性复发的疾病,在肿瘤环境中报告不足。报告正在吸烟的人(CS)和报告最近戒烟的人(RQ)在被诊断患有癌症时应该接受戒烟支持。该研究旨在确定肿瘤学中CS和RQ在戒烟支持方面是否存在差异,以及关于戒烟的好处给出了什么建议。方法:一项关于戒烟实践的调查是由澳大利亚9个癌症中心的肿瘤临床医生(医学、护理和联合健康)完成的。数据分析采用混合效应有序回归模型。结果:在177名完成调查的临床医生中,在询问吸烟状况(比值比[OR] 3.03, p = 0.001)、关于戒烟益处的建议(比值比[OR] 2.86, p = 0.001)和建议拨打戒烟热线(比值比[OR] 5.08, p < 0.001)方面,CS提供的戒烟护理显著高于RQ。探索性分析表明,医生和专科护士报告将CS转到戒烟热线的可能性是RQ的四倍(OR 4.38, p = 0.001;OR为4.29,95%,p = 0.005)。临床医生最常向患者提到的戒烟好处是,戒烟“可以减少出现治疗并发症和副作用的机会”。结论:肿瘤RQ患者的戒烟护理相对缺乏,表明吸烟复发率高的认识不充分。在向RQ建议继续不吸烟对生存的特定益处、提供转诊和提供后续支持方面,需要提高认识和培训。
A Comparison of Australian Oncology Clinicians' Smoking Cessation Care Practices for People Who Currently Smoke Versus Those Who Report Recently Stopping Smoking
Aim
Smoking is a chronic relapsing condition that is under-reported in oncology settings. People who report current smoking (CS) and those who report recently quitting smoking (RQ) should receive cessation support when they are diagnosed with cancer. The study aimed to identify whether differences exist in the smoking cessation support given to CS and RQ in oncology and what advice is given regarding the benefits of cessation.
Method
A survey exploring smoking cessation practices was completed by oncology clinicians (medical, nursing, and allied health) at nine cancer centers in Australia. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects ordinal regression modeling.
Results
Across the 177 clinicians completing the survey, the reported provision of smoking cessation care was significantly higher for CS than for RQ in relation to asking about smoking status (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, p = 0.001), advice on the benefits of quitting (OR 2.86, p = 0.001), and advice to call the Quitline (OR 5.08, p < 0.001). Exploratory analyses indicated doctors and nurse specialists were four times more likely to report referring CS to a Quitline compared to RQ (OR 4.38, p = 0.001; OR 4.29, 95%, p = 0.005, respectively). The cessation benefits that clinicians most often cited to their patients was that quitting “can reduce the chance of developing treatment complications and side effects”.
Conclusion
The relative lack of smoking cessation care provided to RQ in oncology suggests that the high risk of smoking relapse is not well-recognized. Greater awareness and training are needed regarding advising RQ about the survival-specific benefits of continuing to not smoke, offering referrals, and offering follow-up support.
期刊介绍:
Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.