Smokers Awareness and Risk Perceptions of Filter Ventilation

Objectives: The addition of tiny rows of holes in the tipping paper (filter ventilation) of cigarettes allows air to mix with the smoke, which can change risk perceptions. In this study, we examine smokers' knowledge and beliefs about filter ventilation. Methods: Web-based panel surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 of current adult cigarette smokers (N = 2355) provided data on awareness and understanding of filter vents in their cigarettes, whether they believed blocking the holes would change the taste of their cigarettes, and their perceptions about their future risk of being diagnosed with lung cancer. The most commonly used cigarette brands reported by participants also were characterized on the presence and level of ventilation holes. Results: Approximately 40% of participants (mostly younger and male) reported awareness of the filter ventilation in their cigarettes. Only 30% of the participants were both aware of and understood the function of filter ventilation; they also were significantly more likely to worry about developing lung cancer. Conclusion: Although misleading descriptors associated with filter ventilation are prohibited, most smokers still smoked cigarettes with filter vents, and many are unaware and misunderstand the potential risks of filter ventilation.

Download Full-text

Biased Lung Cancer Risk Perceptions: Smokers are Misinformed

Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik ◽

10.1515/jbnst-2018-0017 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 238 (5) ◽

pp. 395-421 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Nicolas R. Ziebarth

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Cancer Risk ◽

Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Mortality Risk ◽

Risk Perceptions ◽

Lung Cancer Risk ◽

Lifetime Risk ◽

Lung Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Cancer Risk Perceptions ◽

Overall Mortality

Abstract This paper empirically investigates biased beliefs about the risks of smoking. First, it confirms the established tendency of people to overestimate the lifetime risk of a smoker to contract lung cancer. In this paper’s survey, almost half of all respondents overestimate this risk. However, 80% underestimate lung cancer deadliness. In reality, less than one in five patients survive five years after a lung cancer diagnosis. Due to the broad underestimation of the lung cancer deadliness, the lifetime risk of a smoker to die of lung cancer is underestimated by almost half of all respondents. Smokers who do not plan to quit are significantly more likely to underestimate this overall mortality risk.

Download Full-text

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: A Simulation Study

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute ◽

10.1093/jnci/djab002 ◽

2021 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Christopher J Cadham ◽

Pianpian Cao ◽

Jinani Jayasekera ◽

Kathryn L Taylor ◽

David T Levy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Smoking Cessation ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Task Force ◽

Lung Cancer Screening ◽

Cancer Registries ◽

Web Based ◽

Screening Programs ◽

Life Years

Abstract Background Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches. Methods We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence. Conclusion All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability.

Download Full-text

Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Harm From Specific Tobacco Products: Findings From the H.I.N.T. Survey

American Journal of Health Promotion ◽

10.1177/08901171211026116 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 089011712110261

Author(s):

Wenxue Lin ◽

Joshua E. Muscat

Keyword(s):

Electronic Cigarettes ◽

Multiple Linear Regression Model ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cigarette Smokers ◽

Tobacco Products ◽

Single Item ◽

Knowledge And Beliefs ◽

Nationally Representative ◽

National Trends ◽

Medical Recommendations

Purpose: Determine whether dual tobacco users have different levels of knowledge about nicotine addiction, perceived harm beliefs of low nicotine cigarettes (LNCs) and beliefs about electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) Design: Quantitative, Cross-sectional Setting: Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (Cycle 3, 2019) Participants: Nationally representative adult non-smokers (n=3113), exclusive cigarette smokers (n=302), and dual (cigarette and e-cigarette) users (n=77). Measures: The survey included single item measures on whether nicotine causes addiction and whether nicotine causes cancer. A five-point Likert scale assessed comparative harm of e-cigarettes and LNCs relative to conventional combustible cigarettes (1=much more harmful, 3=equally harmful…5 = much less harmful, or don’t know). Analysis: We used weighted multiple linear regression model to estimate means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of e-cigarettes and LNCs beliefs by current tobacco user status. Results: Over 97% of dual users, 83% of non-smokers and 86% of exclusive cigarette smokers correctly identified that nicotine is addictive. The majority of subjects incorrectly identified nicotine as a cause of cancer, with dual users having the lowest proportion of incorrect responses (60%). Dual users rated e-cigarette harmfulness as less harmful than combustibles (mean=2.20; 95% CI=1.73, 2.66) while exclusive cigarette smokers and non-smokers rated them as similarly harmful. LNCs were considered equally harmful and addictive as conventional cigarettes. Conclusion: Dual users had a higher knowledge base of tobacco-related health effects. The effectiveness of policies or medical recommendations to encourage smokers to switch from cigarettes to LNCs or e-cigarettes will need to consider accurate and inaccurate misperceptions about the harm and addictiveness of nicotine. Improved public health messages about different tobacco products are needed.

Download Full-text

Web based fuzzy expert system for lung cancer diagnosis

2016 2nd International Conference on Science in Information Technology (ICSITech) ◽

10.1109/icsitech.2016.7852623 ◽

2016 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rodiah ◽

Fitrianingsih ◽

Herio Susanto ◽

Emy Haryatmi

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Expert System ◽

Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Fuzzy Expert System ◽

Web Based ◽

Lung Cancer Diagnosis

Download Full-text

Physicians’ Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Athletic Trainers

Journal of Sports Medicine and Allied Health Sciences Official Journal of the Ohio Athletic Trainers Association ◽

10.25035/jsmahs.04.03.01 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 4 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Joseph Vogler ◽

Lindsey Eberman ◽

Zachary Winkelmann ◽

M. Seth Smith ◽

James Turner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Interprofessional Collaboration ◽

Athletic Trainers ◽

Academic Preparation ◽

Scope Of Practice ◽

Web Based ◽

Educational Preparation ◽

Knowledge And Beliefs ◽

Legal Obligations ◽

The Relationship ◽

Improve Patient

Purpose: The relationship between athletic trainers (ATs) and physicians is a legal obligation and collaboration to improve patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the knowledge of physicians regarding the educational preparation, legal obligations, and scope of practice for ATs and how it relates to previous experiences with ATs. Additionally physicians’ perceptions of Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) were studied. Methods: 169 physicians medical doctors (MD)=133/169, 78.7%, doctor of osteopathy (DO)=36/169, 21%) completed a 36-question web-based survey, which included a validated IPC scale. Results: Respondents with experience working with an AT scored significantly higher (P < 0.01) on the knowledge assessment, where physicians currently working with an AT scored higher (5.4/8) than those who previously worked with an AT (4.2/8) and those who had never worked with an AT (3.3/8). Additionally, physicians with previous exposure to an AT as an athlete had significantly higher knowledge scores than those without exposure (P < 0.01). Two areas of weakness in IPC from the physician’s perspective included sharing of important information (2.48/4) and importance of work as compared to others on the team (2.38/4). Conclusions: Physicians who have a current working relationship with an AT and those that had access to an AT as an athlete demonstrated significantly higher knowledge about an AT’s academic preparation, legal obligations, and scope of practice. Moreover, physicians currently working with an AT report positive interprofessional collaborations.

Download Full-text

Development and Patient Usability Analysis of a Veteran Centric Web-based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.29039 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Marilyn Schapira ◽

Sumedha Chhatre ◽

Jason Prigge ◽

Jessica Meline ◽

Dana Kaminstein ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Medical Center ◽

Clinical Care ◽

Lung Cancer Screening ◽

Potential Range ◽

Medical Terminology ◽

Web Based ◽

System Usability Scale

BACKGROUND Web based tools developed to facilitate a Shared Decision Making (SDM) process may facilitate implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that impact the benefit and potential harms of LCS, so may value a Veteran centric LCS SDM too OBJECTIVE To develop and conduct usability testing of a LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) designed for Veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). METHODS A user-centered design approach was undertaken to develop the LCSDecTool. Usability of a prototype was assessed among 18 Veterans from two VA sites. Usability of a high fidelity version was assessed among 43 Veterans as part of a clinical trial. Outcomes included the System Usability Scale (SUS), the End User Computer Satisfaction (EUCS), and the Patient Engagement (PE) scale. Qualitative data from observations and short interviews with users were analyzed and themes pertaining to usability identified. RESULTS The mean (SD) in the pilot clinical trial (n=43) for the SUS (potential range 0 [low] to 100 [high] was 65.76 [15.23]); EUCS (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high] was 3.91 [0.95]); and PE (potential range 1[low) to 5 [high] was 4.62 [0.67]). Time to completion of the LCSDecTool in minutes (median, intra-quartile range) was (13, 10-16). Emerging themes included: 1) a baseline gap in awareness of LCS with knowledge gained from using the LCSDecTool, 2) an interest in details about the LCS process, 3) the LCSDecTool was easy to use overall but specific navigation challenges identified, and 4) difficulty in understanding medical terminology. CONCLUSIONS The LCSDecTool demonstrates a good level of usability among Veterans when testing in the context of clinical care. Study findings will inform further modifications of the tool, including shortening the length and simplifying language. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754

Download Full-text

Effect of a hypothetical modified risk tobacco product claim on heated tobacco product use intention and perceptions in young adults

Tobacco Control ◽

10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056479 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. tobaccocontrol-2021-056479

Author(s):

Julia C Chen-Sankey ◽

Afton Kechter ◽

Jessica Barrington-Trimis ◽

Rob McConnell ◽

Evan A Krueger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Young Adults ◽

Tobacco Product ◽

Cigarette Use ◽

Dual Use ◽

Cigarette Smokers ◽

Web Based ◽

Experimental Effect ◽

Current Cigarette ◽

Product Claim ◽

Related Harm

IntroductionModified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims for heated tobacco products (HTPs) that convey reduced exposure compared with conventional cigarettes may promote product initiation and transition among young people. We assessed the effects of a hypothetical MRTP claim for HTPs on young adults’ intention and perceptions of using HTPs and whether these effects differed by their current cigarette and e-cigarette use.MethodsWe embedded a randomised between-subjects experiment into a web-based survey administered among a cohort of 2354 Southern California young adults (aged 20–23) in 2020. Participants viewed depictions of HTPs with an MRTP claim (n=1190) or no claim (n=1164). HTP use intention and HTP-related harm and use perceptions relative to cigarettes and e-cigarettes were assessed.ResultsOverall, participants who viewed versus did not view the claim did not differ in HTP use intention (28.5% vs 28.7%) but were more likely to perceive HTPs as less harmful than cigarettes (11.4% vs 7.0%; p<0.001). The experimental effect on HTP use intention did not differ among past 30-day cigarette smokers versus non-smokers (interaction adjusted OR (AOR)=0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.76) but differed among past 30-day e-cigarette users versus non-users (interaction AOR=1.67, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.68).DiscussionThe hypothetical MRTP claim may lower young adults’ HTP harm perceptions compared with cigarettes but may not change HTP use intention overall or differentially for cigarette smokers. The larger effect on HTP use intention among e-cigarette users than non-users raises the question of whether MRTP claims may promote HTP use or HTP and e-cigarette dual use among young e-cigarette users.

Download Full-text

Treatment Decision Drivers in Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Outcomes of a Web-Based Survey of Oncologists in the United States

JCO Oncology Practice ◽

10.1200/jop.19.00781 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. JOP.19.00781

Author(s):

Ion Cotarla ◽

Marnie L. Boron ◽

Shawna L. Cullen ◽

Daryl S. Spinner ◽

Eric C. Faulkner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Decision Making ◽

Treatment Decision ◽

The United States ◽

Small Cell ◽

Stage Iii ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Web Based ◽

Unresectable Stage ◽

Stage Iii Nsclc

PURPOSE: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of practicing medical oncologists in the United States to obtain insight into physician and patient treatment decision making in stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A convenience sample of 150 oncologists completed a 38-question Web-based survey in January 2019. RESULTS: Surveyed oncologists (82% community based) had an average of 15 years of clinical experience and had treated an average of 20 patients newly diagnosed with stage III NSCLC in the previous 6 months. Oncologists reported presenting 55% of their patients with stage III NSCLC to tumor boards. For patients with new unresectable stage III NSCLC seen in the previous 6 months, concurrent chemoradiation therapy (cCRT) was reported as the initial treatment in an average of 48% of patients. The most frequent reason for delays in starting the initial chosen treatment was insurance preauthorization processes (reported by 65% of oncologists). A total of 55% of all patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC who received cCRT went on to receive consolidation immunotherapy; for patients who received consolidation chemotherapy after cCRT, the rate of immunotherapy was lower (42%). Biomarker test results were given as the reason for oncologists not recommending immunotherapy after cCRT in approximately a quarter of cases. The 112 oncologists with eligible patients who declined immunotherapy reported previous treatment fatigue as the reason in 34% of patients and insurance challenges in 19% of patients. CONCLUSION: Oncologists reported notable deviations from treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC. Our findings highlight important opportunities to improve decision making and the coordination of care in stage III NSCLC.

Download Full-text