The Lung Screening, Tobacco and Health Project

The purpose of this study is to compare intensive telephone counseling (ITC) plus the nicotine patch vs. standard telephone counseling plus the nicotine patch (Usual Care; UC) among current smokers undergoing lung cancer screening. Smoking-related outcomes will be examined at three, six and twelve months post-randomization.

The investigators have built on the evidence-base of telephone counseling for smoking cessation. This pragmatic approach is designed at the intersection of scalability and intensity, for future implementation within the national tobacco quitline. In collaboration with five geographically and ethnically diverse lung cancer screening programs, the investigators will accrue smokers who have registered for screening,and are at all levels of readiness to quit. Prior to the screening day, the investigators will conduct the baseline (T0) phone interview. Following participants' receipt of their screening result (one week post-screening), the investigators will complete the T1 phone interview, provide brief advice to quit and conduct randomization. Participants will be randomized into one of two groups: ITC, in which participants are provided up to 8 counseling sessions lasting approximately 20 minutes each and access to 8-weeks of free nicotine patches. ITC will include a discussion of screening results throughout counseling sessions. The UC arm will include up to 3 counseling sessions lasting approximately 20 minutes each and access to 2-weeks of free nicotine patches. UC will not include a discussion of screening results throughout counseling sessions. All sessions will be conducted by a Tobacco Treatment Specialist (English or Spanish) and the investigators will assess intervention fidelity. In both groups, the investigators will engage referring physicians by notifying them of their patients' study enrollment and of their patients' smoking status at the 6-month follow-up. The 3-month (T2), 6-month (T3), and 12-month (T4) assessments will assess readiness to quit, quit attempts, 7-day and 30-day abstinence verified by Nicalert or carbon monoxide testing, and intervention process variables. Furthermore, two important aspects of this approach include a cost-effectiveness analysis and use of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate the cost of the interventions relative to their impact on short- and long-term smoking-related outcomes. The aims are: 1. To compare ITC vs. UC standard telephone counseling. H1.1. At 3-, 6-, and 12- months, the ITC arm will have significantly improved biochemically verified 7-day and 30-day abstinence, compared to UC. H1.2. Mediators, including teachable moment factors (e.g., perceived risk based on screening results) and process measures (TC and nicotine patch adherence, primary care appointment) will positively affect cessation outcomes at 3-, 6- and 12-months. H.1.3. Moderators include screening result, readiness to quit, and nicotine dependence. 2. To evaluate reach (% of current smokers enrolled) and engagement (% who receive the interventions), both overall and among subgroups (gender, age, nicotine dependence, site). The investigators will assess intervention fidelity and feasibility for implementation, from both community-based and academically-based screening centers. 3. To conduct an economic analysis to test the hypothesis that while costlier, ITC will be more effective and have greater reach than UC in the lung screening setting, making it more cost-effective in terms of costs per 3-, 6- and 12-month cessation rates and quit attempts. The investigators will use these results as inputs to the CISNET model to project the long-term impact of the interventions on costs per life year saved and quality-adjusted life years saved, lung cancer deaths averted, lung cancer mortality reduction, and overall population mortality. This study's strengths include the assessment of effective cessation methods designed for widespread implementation, novel components based on unique features of screening, cost-effectiveness analyses, and leveraging the University of Michigan CISNET model to project the population impact of implementing an effective cessation intervention in lung screening programs. The overall goal is to have a substantial public health impact by providing critical data to address scalability efforts by screening centers, insurers, and policy-makers.