ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology2025
A Comparison of Australian Oncology Clinicians' Smoking Cessation Care Practices for People Who Currently Smoke Versus Those Who Report Recently Stopping Smoking.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimSmoking is a chronic relapsing condition that is under-reported in oncology settings. People who report current smoking (CS) and those who report recently quitting smoking (RQ) should receive cessation support when they are diagnosed with cancer. The study aimed to identify whether differences exist in the smoking cessation support given to CS and RQ in oncology and what advice is given regarding the benefits of cessation.
methodA survey exploring smoking cessation practices was completed by oncology clinicians (medical, nursing, and allied health) at nine cancer centers in Australia. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects ordinal regression modeling.
resultsAcross the 177 clinicians completing the survey, the reported provision of smoking cessation care was significantly higher for CS than for RQ in relation to asking about smoking status (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, p = 0.001), advice on the benefits of quitting (OR 2.86, p = 0.001), and advice to call the Quitline (OR 5.08, p < 0.001). Exploratory analyses indicated doctors and nurse specialists were four times more likely to report referring CS to a Quitline compared to RQ (OR 4.38, p = 0.001; OR 4.29, 95%, p = 0.005, respectively). The cessation benefits that clinicians most often cited to their patients was that quitting "can reduce the chance of developing treatment complications and side effects".
conclusionThe relative lack of smoking cessation care provided to RQ in oncology suggests that the high risk of smoking relapse is not well-recognized. Greater awareness and training are needed regarding advising RQ about the survival-specific benefits of continuing to not smoke, offering referrals, and offering follow-up support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.