Search

Introduction Cigarette smoking prevalence is higher among adults enrolled in Medicaid than adults with private health insurance. State Medicaid coverage of cessation treatments has been gradually improving in recent years; however, the extent to which this has translated into increased use of these treatments by Medicaid enrollees remains unknown. Aims and Methods Using Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) files, we estimated state-level receipt of smoking cessation treatments and associated spending among Medicaid fee-for service (FFS) enrollees who try to quit. MAX data are the only national person-level data set available for the Medicaid program. We used the most recent MAX data available for each state and the District of Columbia (ranging from 2010 to 2014) for this analysis. Results Among the 37 states with data, an average of 9.4% of FFS Medicaid smokers with a past-year quit attempt had claims for cessation medications, ranging from 0.2% (Arkansas) to 32.9% (Minnesota). Among the 20 states with data, an average of 2.7% of FFS Medicaid smokers with a past-year quit attempt received cessation counseling, ranging from 0.1% (Florida) to 5.6% (Missouri). Estimated Medicaid spending for cessation medications and counseling for these states totaled just over $13 million. If all Medicaid smokers who tried to quit were to have claims for cessation medications, projected annual Medicaid expenditures would total $0.8 billion, a small fraction of the amount ($45.9 billion) that Medicaid spends annually on treating smoking-related disease. Conclusions The receipt of cessation medications and counseling among FFS Medicaid enrollees was low and varied widely across states. Implications Few studies have examined use of cessation treatments among Medicaid enrollees. We found that many FFS Medicaid smokers made quit attempts, but few had claims for proven cessation treatments, especially counseling. The receipt of cessation treatments among FFS Medicaid enrollees varied widely across states, suggesting opportunities for additional promotion of the full range of Medicaid cessation benefits. Continued monitoring of Medicaid enrollees’ use of cessation treatments could inform state and national efforts to help more Medicaid enrollees quit smoking.

Purpose Tobacco 21 (T21) is a population-based strategy to prevent tobacco initiation. A majority of U.S. youths support T21; however, the extent to which individual, interpersonal, and community factors influence T21 support is uncertain. This study explored predictors of T21 support among U.S. youth. Methods We analyzed data from the 2015 National Youth Tobacco Survey (n = 17,683) to assess the association of peer influence and access to tobacco products on T21 support. We used multivariable logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals for T21 support. For tobacco nonusers, the model included peer influence along with covariates including sex, age, race/ethnicity, household tobacco use, and perceived harm. For tobacco users, the model included tobacco access sources (direct purchase, social sources, and other means), the aforementioned covariates, and tobacco product type. Results Among nonusers, students least receptive to peer influence (aOR = 2.5), those youngest in age (11–14 years, aOR = 2.3), and those who believe tobacco is dangerous (aOR = 2.5) had higher odds of T21 support. Among users, lower odds of T21 support were observed among those who purchased tobacco (aOR = .3) and accessed tobacco through social sources (aOR = .7) or other means (aOR = .6) in the past 30 days. Younger tobacco users (11–14 years, aOR = 2.2), black, non-Hispanic users (aOR = 3.8), e-cigarette users (aOR = 2.5), and users who believe that tobacco is dangerous (aOR = 2.8) had higher odds of T21 support. Conclusions Low receptivity to peer influence and lack of access to tobacco products are associated with T21 support. Results underscore that T21 implementation may require a social-ecological approach.

ImportanceTwo components of social norms—descriptive (estimated prevalence) and injunctive (perceived acceptability)—can influence youth tobacco use.ObjectiveTo investigate electronic cigarettes (e-cigarette) and cigarette descriptive norms and measure the associations between overestimation of e-cigarette and cigarette prevalence and tobacco-related attitudes and behaviours.DesignCross-sectional.SettingSchool-based, using paper-and-pencil questionnaires.ParticipantsUS 6th-12th graders participating in the 2015 (n=17 711) and 2016 (n=20 675) National Youth Tobacco Survey.ExposureStudents estimated the percent of their grade-mates who they thought used e-cigarettes and cigarettes; the discordance between perceived versus grade-specific actual prevalence was used to categorise students as overestimating (1) neither product, (2) e-cigarettes only, (3) cigarettes only or (4) both products.OutcomesProduct-specific outcomes were curiosity and susceptibility (never users), as well as ever and current use (all students). Descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Statistical significance was at PResultsMore students overestimated cigarette (74.0%) than e-cigarette prevalence (61.0%; PConclusionsFour of five US students overestimated peer e-cigarette or cigarette use. Counter-tobacco mass media messages can help denormalise tobacco use.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of smoking among cancer survivors is similar to the general population. However, there is little evidence on the prevalence of specific smoking cessation behaviors among adult cancer survivors. METHODS: The 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data were analyzed to examine the prevalence of smoking cessation behaviors and use of treatments among cancer survivors. Weighted self-reported prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a sample of 2527 cancer survivors. RESULTS: Among this sample of US cancer survivors, 12% were current smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 51% were never smokers. Compared with former and never smokers, current smokers were younger (< 65 years), less educated, and less likely to report being insured or Medicaid health insurance (p < 0.01). More males were former smokers than current or never smokers. Current smokers reported wanting to quit (57%), a past year quit attempt (49%), or a health professional advised them to quit (66%). Current smokers reported the use of smoking cessation counseling (8%) or medication (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Even after a cancer diagnosis, about one in eight cancer survivors continued to smoke. All could have received advice to quit smoking by a health professional, but a third did not. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Health professionals could consistently advise cancer survivors about the increased risks associated with continued smoking, provide them with cessation counseling and medications, refer them to other free cessation resources, and inform them of cessation treatments covered by their health insurance.

Smokeless tobacco has been actively promoted by tobacco companies using endorsements by major sport figures, and research indicates that tobacco advertising can lead to youth initiation of tobacco use (1,2). Television and radio advertisements for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco have been prohibited since 1969,* and the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement(†) further prohibited tobacco companies from targeting youths with tobacco product advertisements in specified areas. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under authority of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA), prohibited tobacco-brand sponsorship (i.e., sponsorship of sports and entertainment events or other social or cultural events using the tobacco brand name or anything identifiable with any brand of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco).(§) However, corporate-name tobacco sponsorship (i.e., sponsorship using the name of the corporation that manufactures regulated tobacco products) is still permitted under certain conditions.(¶) To monitor tobacco advertising and promotional activities in sports in the United States, CDC analyzed trends in sports-related marketing expenditures for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco during 1992-2013 using data from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). During 1992-2013, sports-related marketing expenditures, adjusted by the consumer price index to constant 2013 dollars, decreased significantly for both cigarettes (from $136 million in 1992 to $0 in 2013) and smokeless tobacco (from $34.8 million in 1992 to $2.1 million in 2013). During 2010-2013, after the prohibition of tobacco-brand sponsorship in sports under the FSPTCA, cigarette manufacturers reported no spending (i.e., $0) on sports-related advertising and promotional activities; in contrast, smokeless tobacco manufacturers reported expenditures of $16.3 million on advertising and promoting smokeless tobacco in sports during 2010-2013. These findings indicate that despite prohibitions on brand sponsorship, smokeless tobacco products continue to be marketed in sports in the United States, potentially through other indirect channels such as corporate-name sponsorship. Enhanced measures are warranted to restrict youth-oriented tobacco marketing and promotional activities that could lead to tobacco initiation and use among children and adolescents (2). Reducing tobacco industry promotion through sponsorship of public and private events is an evidence-based strategy for preventing youth initiation of tobacco use (3). In addition, other proven interventions (e.g., tobacco price increases, anti-tobacco mass media campaigns, tobacco-free policies inclusive of smokeless tobacco, and barrier-free access to cessation services), could help reduce smokeless tobacco use in the United States (1).

BACKGROUND: We investigated 3 social dimensions of youth hookah smoking: frequency, places smoked, and descriptive social norms. METHODS: Data were from the 2016 National Youth Tobacco Survey of US sixth- to 12th-graders (n = 20 675). Hookah smoking frequency was classified as never, former, current occasional, and current frequent. Places where past 30-day hookah smoking occurred and students’ perceptions of their classmates’ hookah smoking prevalence were assessed. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were performed (P < .05). RESULTS: Overall, 10.5% reported smoking hookah ≥1 time in their lifetime. Of these, 65.8% were former, 26.3% were current occasional, and 7.9% were current frequent smokers. Overall, 59.3% of students overestimated hookah smoking prevalence in their grade. Current occasional smoking was predicted by female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.54) and peer hookah-smoking overestimation (aOR = 9.30). Current frequent smoking was most strongly predicted by living with a hookah smoker (aOR = 20.56), speaking a second language other than English (aOR = 2.17), and co-use of mentholated cigarettes (aOR = 19.94) or other flavored noncigarette tobacco products (aOR = 17.59). The top 3 places hookah was smoked were a friend’s house (47.7%), the respondent’s own house (31.8%), and another family member’s house (20.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The home environment was the most common place for youth hookah smoking. Home-tailored interventions that encourage voluntary smoke-free rules and warn about the dangers of social smoking could help denormalize hookah smoking.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a systematic screening and assessment process to identify promising practices implemented by grantees of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and its partners that were appropriate for rigorous evaluation.The systematic screening and assessment (SSA) process was conducted from September 2010 through March 2012 and included five steps: (1) nominations of promising practices; (2) a first rating by subject matter experts; (3) field-based evaluability assessments; (4) a second rating by experts; and (5) use of results. Nominations were sought in three program areas including health education and promotion, quality assurance and quality improvement, and case management/patient navigation.A total of 98 practices were nominated of which 54 % were eligible for the first review by the experts. Fifteen practices were selected for evaluability assessment with ten forwarded for the second review by the experts. Three practices were ultimately recommended for rigorous evaluation, and one evaluation was conducted. Most nominated practices were based on evidence-based strategies rather than representing new, innovative activities. Issues were identified through the process including inconsistent implementation and lack of implementation fidelity.While the SSA was successful in identifying several programs for evaluation, the process also revealed important shortcomings in program implementation. Training and technical assistance could help address these issues and support improved programming.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites as part of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to provide colorectal cancer screening to low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals. Funded sites experienced unexpected challenges in recruiting patients for services. METHODS: The authors conducted a longitudinal, qualitative case study of all 5 sites to document program implementation, including recruitment. Data were collected during 3 periods over the 4-year program and included interviews, document review, and observations. After coding and analyzing the data, themes were identified and triangulated across the research team. Patterns were confirmed through member checking, further validating the analytic interpretation. RESULTS: During early implementation, patient enrollment was low at 4 of the 5 CRCSDP sites. Evaluators found 3 primary challenges to patient recruitment: overreliance on in-reach to National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program patients, difficulty keeping colorectal cancer screening and the program a priority among staff at partnering primary care clinics responsible for patient recruitment, and a lack of public knowledge about the need for colorectal cancer screening among patients. To address these challenges, site staff expanded partnerships with additional primary care networks for greater reach, enhanced technical support to primary care providers to ensure more consistent patient enrollment, and developed tailored outreach and education. CONCLUSIONS: Removing financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening was necessary but not sufficient to reach the priority population. To optimize colorectal cancer screening, public health practitioners must work closely with the health care sector to implement evidence-based, comprehensive strategies across individual, environmental, and systems levels of society. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2914-25. V C 2013 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND In 2005 through 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites to implement a colorectal cancer screening program for uninsured, low-income populations. These 5 sites composed a demonstration project intended to explore the feasibility of establishing a national colorectal cancer screening program through various service delivery models. METHODS A longitudinal, multiple case study was conducted to understand and document program implementation processes. Using metaphor as a qualitative analytic technique, evaluators identified stages of maturation across the programmatic life cycle. RESULTS Analysis rendered a working theory of program development during screening implementation. In early stages, program staff built relationships with CDC and local partners around screening readiness, faced real-world challenges putting program policies into practice, revised initial program designs, and developed new professional skills. Midterm implementation was defined by establishing program cohesiveness and expanding programmatic reach. In later stages of implementation, staff focused on sustainability and formal program closeout, which prompted reflection about personal and programmatic accomplishments. CONCLUSIONS Demonstration sites evolved through common developmental stages during screening implementation. Findings elucidate ways to target technical assistance to more efficiently move programs along their maturation trajectory. In practical terms, the time and cost associated with guiding a program to maturity may be potentially shortened to maximize return on investment for both organizations and clients receiving service benefits. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2926–39. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer, as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women in the United States, represents an important area for public health intervention. Although colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer and detect disease early when treatment is most effective, few organized public health screening programs have been implemented and evaluated. From 2005 to 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 5 sites to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which was designed to reach medically underserved populations.The authors conducted a longitudinal, multiple case study to analyze program implementation processes. Qualitative methods included interviews with 100 stakeholders, 125 observations, and review of 19 documents. Data were analyzed within and across cases.Several themes related to CRCSDP implementation emerged from the cross-case analysis: the complexity of colorectal cancer screening, the need for teamwork and collaboration, integration of the program into existing systems, the ability of programs to use wisdom at the local level, and the influence of social norms. Although these themes were explored independently from 1 another, interaction across themes was evident.Colorectal cancer screening is clinically complex, and its screening methods are not well accepted by the general public; both of these circumstances have implications for program implementation. Using patient navigation, engaging in transdisciplinary teamwork, assimilating new programs into existing clinical settings, and deferring to local-level wisdom together helped to address complexity and enhance program implementation. In addition, public health efforts must confront negative social norms around colorectal cancer screening.