Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39915257›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open respiratory research2025

Uptake and 4-week outcomes of an 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral strategy in a London-based lung cancer screening setting.

Amyn Bhamani, Evangelos Katsampouris, Fanta Bojang, Priyam Verghese, Andrew Creamer, Ruth Prendecki, Chuen R Khaw, Jennifer L Dickson, Carolyn Horst, Sophie Tisi and 10 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03934866 (The SUMMIT Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03934866 active not recruitingnot on this map

The SUMMIT Study: Cancer Screening Study With or Without Low Dose Lung CT to Validate a Multi-cancer Early Detection Test

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2019 to 2030Enrolled13,035ConditionsCancer, Lung CancerArmsLow Dose CT scan
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Amyn BhamaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8575-6119
Evangelos KatsampourisWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5211-6572
Fanta BojangUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Priyam VergheseLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew CreamerLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Ruth PrendeckiLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Chuen R KhawLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Jennifer L DicksonLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Carolyn HorstLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Sophie TisiLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Helen HallLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7305-8367
John McCabeLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Kylie GyertsonUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Anne-Marie HackerCancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK.
Laura FarrellyCancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK.
Neal NavaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Allan HackshawCancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK.
SUMMIT Consortium
Samuel M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Samantha L QuaifeWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK s.quaife@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLung cancer screening (LCS) enables the delivery of smoking cessation interventions to a population experiencing long-term tobacco dependence, but the optimal delivery method remains unclear. Here, we report uptake and short-term outcomes of an 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral strategy in an LCS cohort.

methodsIndividuals currently smoking tobacco who attended a face-to-face lung health check in the SUMMIT study (NCT03934866) were offered very brief advice on smoking cessation and where possible, an 'opt-out' referral to their local stop smoking service (SSS). Aggregate data on referral outcomes were obtained from each SSS individually.

results33.7% (n=2090/6203) of individuals currently smoking tobacco consented to a practitioner-made 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral. 42.7% (n=893/2090) of these individuals resided in boroughs where SSS were not present or required self-referral. Males (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.16), younger individuals (55-59: aOR 1.70, 60-64: aOR 1.71 and 65-69: aOR 1.78) and those of ethnic minority backgrounds (Asian: aOR 1.31, Black: aOR 1.71 and Mixed: aOR 1.72) were more likely to consent, while individuals from the most deprived socioeconomic quintile were less likely to do so (aOR 0.65).High level of motivation to quit within a defined time frame (aOR 1.92), previous quit attempts in the past 12 months (1-4: aOR 1.65 and ≥5: aOR 1.54) and time to first cigarette of ≤60 min (<5: aOR 2.07, 6-30: aOR 1.55 and 31-60: aOR 1.56) were measures of tobacco dependence associated with a higher likelihood of providing consent.Outcomes were available for 742 referrals. An appointment with the service was accepted by 47.3% (n=351/742) of individuals, following which 65.5% (n=230/351) set a quit date. The 4-week quit rate among those setting a quit date and all individuals referred was 57.4% (n=132/230) and 17.8% (n=132/742), respectively.

conclusionA proactive, 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral strategy for individuals currently smoking tobacco who interact with an LCS programme may be beneficial.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationSmoking CessationAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLondonMaleMiddle AgedLung CancerTobacco and the lung

Identifiers

PMID39915257
PMCPMC11804203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.