TY - JOUR
T1 - Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Testing Behavioral Economic Implementation Strategies to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Patients With Cancer Who Smoke
AU - Jenssen, Brian P.
AU - Schnoll, Robert
AU - Beidas, Rinad S.
AU - Bekelman, Justin
AU - Bauer, Anna Marika
AU - Evers-Casey, Sarah
AU - Fisher, Tierney
AU - Scott, Callie
AU - Nicoloso, Jody
AU - Gabriel, Peter
AU - Asch, David A.
AU - Buttenheim, Alison M.
AU - Chen, Jessica
AU - Melo, Julissa
AU - Grant, Dwayne
AU - Horst, Michael
AU - Oyer, Randall
AU - Shulman, Lawrence N.
AU - Clifton, Alicia B.W.
AU - Lieberman, Adina
AU - Salam, Tasnim
AU - Rendle, Katharine A.
AU - Chaiyachati, Krisda H.
AU - Shelton, Rachel C.
AU - Fayanju, Oluwadamilola
AU - Wileyto, E. Paul
AU - Ware, Sue
AU - Blumenthal, Daniel
AU - Ragusano, Daniel
AU - Leone, Frank T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
PY - 2023/10/1
Y1 - 2023/10/1
N2 - Purpose: Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology. Methods: We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model. Results: From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P <.0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P <.0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P =.004). Conclusione: HR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.
AB - Purpose: Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology. Methods: We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model. Results: From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P <.0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P <.0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P =.004). Conclusione: HR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85173588942&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.23.00355
DO - 10.1200/JCO.23.00355
M3 - Article
C2 - 37467454
AN - SCOPUS:85173588942
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 41
SP - 4511
EP - 4521
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 28
ER -