Published in

Wiley, Cancer, 10(128), p. 1967-1975, 2022

DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34145

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Smoking cessation services and shared decision‐making practices among lung cancer screening facilities: A cross‐sectional study

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

BackgroundLittle is known about how screening facilities are meeting the requirements for the reimbursement of lung cancer screening from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including 1) the collection and submission of data to the CMS‐approved registry (American College of Radiology [ACR] Lung Cancer Screening Registry), 2) the verification of a counseling and shared decision‐making (SDM) visit having occurred as part of the written order for lung cancer screening with low‐dose computed tomography, and 3) the offering of smoking cessation interventions.MethodsThe authors identified facilities in a southwestern state that were listed by either the ACR Lung Cancer Screening Registry or the GO2 Foundation Centers of Excellence. To select facilities, they used 2 purposive sampling approaches: maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling. They surveyed facilities from February to November 2019.ResultsThere were 87 facilities contacted, and a total of 63 facilities representing 32 counties across Texas completed the survey. Nearly all facilities used Lung‐RADS to classify nodules (92%; n = 58) and submitted data to a CMS‐approved registry (92%; n = 57). Most facilities verified that the counseling and SDM visit had occurred (86%; n = 54). Although slightly more than half of the facilities reported always providing self‐help cessation materials (68%; n = 42), similar or higher proportions of facilities reported that they never referred smokers to onsite cessation services (68%; n = 42) or quitlines (77%; n = 47), provided cessation counseling (81%; n = 50), or recommended medications (85%; n = 52).ConclusionsIn general, screening facilities are meeting CMS requirements for screening, but they are struggling to offer smoking cessation interventions other than providing self‐help materials.