A Proactive Telephone-Delivered Risk Communication Intervention for Smokers Participating in Lung Cancer Screening: A Pilot Feasibility Trial

Zeliadt SB, Greene PA, Krebs P, Klein DE, Au DH, Slatore CG, Heffner JL. A Proactive Telephone-Delivered Risk Communication Intervention for Smokers Participating in Lung Cancer Screening: A Pilot Feasibility Trial. Journal of smoking cessation. 2017 Sep 7; 13(3):137-144.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 16-003 – Lung Cancer Screening: Building Blocks for Effective Implementation and Partnership

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

Introduction: Many barriers exist to integrating smoking cessation into delivery of lung cancer screening including limited provider time and patient misconceptions. Aims: To demonstrate that proactive outreach from a telephone counsellor outside of the patient's usual care team is feasible and acceptable to patients. Methods: Smokers undergoing lung cancer screening were approached for a telephone counseling study. Patients agreeing to participate in the intervention (n = 27) received two telephone counseling sessions. A 30-day follow-up evaluation was conducted, which also included screening participants receiving usual care (n = 56). Results/Findings: Most (89%) intervention participants reported being satisfied with the proactive calls, and 81% reported the sessions were helpful. Use of behavioural cessation support programs in the intervention group was four times higher (44%) compared to the usual care group (11%); Relative Risk (RR) = 4.1; 95% CI: 1.7 to 9.9), and seven-day abstinence in the intervention group was double (19%) compared to the usual care group (7%); RR = 2.6; 95% CI: 0.8 to 8.9). Conclusions: This practical telephone-based approach, which included risk messages clarifying continued risks of smoking in the context of screening results, suggests such messaging can boost utilisation of evidence-based tobacco treatment, self-efficacy, and potentially increase the likelihood of successful quitting.