Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40387288›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2025

'Every Touch Point Is an Opportunity': Tobacco Control Experts' Views on How to Implement Smoking Cessation Interventions Within an Australian Lung Cancer Screening Program.

Nathan J Harrison, Diane Riddiford-Harland, Sarah York, Henry M Marshall, Joel J Rhee, Emily Stone, Mei Ling Yap, Ashleigh R Sharman, Marianne Weber, Susan A McCullough and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A guide to cancer screening.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  2. Engaging Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities to Prepare for Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in Australia: A Qualitative Focus Group Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
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

15 authors.

Nathan J HarrisonFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1011-8745
Diane Riddiford-HarlandGraduate School of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3024-3367
Sarah YorkCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9944-849X
Henry M MarshallNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9626-8014
Joel J RheeGraduate School of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5233-2758
Emily StoneDepartment of Thoracic Medicine and Lung Transplantation, St. Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9021-8449
Mei Ling YapCollaboration for Cancer Outcomes, Research and Evaluation, Ingham Institute, UNSW Sydney, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4216-2895
Ashleigh R SharmanSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9342-5061
Marianne WeberThe Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, a Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5731-9651
Susan A McCulloughConsumer Panel, Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia, Thornbury, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3380-1109
Terri ByrnePC4 Community Advisory Group, Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Christine L PaulSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0504-5246
Jacqueline A BowdenFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1983-8930
Billie BonevskiFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8505-622X
Nicole M RankinCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-1405

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund 2008603Metro North Hospital and Health Service (Queensland, Australia) Clinical Academic FellowshipNational Health and Medical Research Council GNT1160245National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1178331National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1185390National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2018108NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame GNT1198301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTargeted lung cancer screening (LCS) presents unique opportunities for smoking cessation among high-risk individuals. Implementation requires consideration of context-specific determinants. We sought perspectives from tobacco control/smoking cessation experts on optimally implementing smoking cessation interventions in an Australian LCS program.

methodsRecruitment was via maximum variation and snowball sampling in 2022. Individual/pair interviews explored factors that may influence acceptability and feasibility, potential delivery models, and implementation strategies. We interpreted interview data using codebook thematic analysis, then mapped key topics against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and previous LCS expert-identified determinants.

resultsExpert participants' (N = 30) roles included program/policy managers, researchers and clinicians, working in academia, not-for-profits/peak bodies and health departments. They emphasised the benefits of integrating smoking cessation interventions into routine LCS encounters. Key barriers included perceived professional and LCS participant reluctance, stigma, and rural access. Experts discouraged duplicating current cessation resources, and suggested prioritising implementation efforts. Flexible delivery models, addressing needs of priority populations (e.g., rural/remote, culturally and linguistically diverse), were recommended. Experts generally favoured a 'hybrid' intervention pathway, combining internal and external cessation services, to maximise feasibility and uptake. Training program staff on cessation intervention delivery and leadership buy-in were emphasised as essential requirements. DISCUSSION: In this Australian tobacco control expert sample, there was near-unanimous support for embedding cessation interventions within routine LCS delivery and capitalising on opportunities to overcome current service delivery barriers. In conjunction with LCS participant perspectives, findings are relevant to planning and implementing cessation interventions in LCS contexts.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsSmoking CessationAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleTobacco ControlAustraliaearly detection of cancerlung neoplasmssmoking cessationtobacco control

Identifiers

PMID40387288
PMCPMC12086983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.