Introduction: Run to Quit is a national community-based program that combines smoking cessation support with physical activity through learn to run group-based curriculum, self-help and smoking cessation materials. The program is currently in a three-year scaling up phase.

Aims: The aim of the current study is to explore participant experiences of the Run to Quit program after its first year, and identify potential areas of improvement for future iterations of the program.

Methods: Participants (n = 55) were interviewed over the phone at the end of the 10-week program. Participant interviews were recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis was conducted.

Results/Findings: Participants were satisfied with the program. Strengths of the program were the group aspect, supervised participation and the running. Weaknesses were seen as the variability in walking and running abilities and inadequate engagement by the Smokers Helpline. Many people who successfully quit smoking reported using additional quit aids. Non-completers of the program gave mostly logistical and personal reasons for dropout.

Conclusions: Overall, Run to Quit was well received by participants. Multiple health behaviour interventions at a scalable level appear feasible. Based on participant feedback, key recommendations to improve the program in the future include greater tailoring to walking or running preference, and increasing engagement with the Smokers Helpline.

Introduction: Continued smoking by cancer patients causes adverse cancer treatment outcomes, but few patients receive evidence-based smoking cessation as a standard of care.

Aim: To evaluate practical strategies to promote wide-scale dissemination and implementation of evidence-based tobacco cessation services within state cancer centers.

Methods: A Collaborative Learning Model (CLM) for Quality Improvement was evaluated with three community oncology practices to identify barriers and facilitate practice change to deliver evidence-based smoking cessation treatments to cancer patients using standardized assessments and referrals to statewide smoking cessation resources. Patients were enrolled and tracked through an automated data system and received follow-up cessation support post-enrollment. Monthly quantitative reports and qualitative data gathered through interviews and collaborative learning sessions were used to evaluate meaningful quality improvement changes in each cancer center.

Results: Baseline practice evaluation for the CLM identified the lack of tobacco use documentation, awareness of cessation guidelines, and awareness of services for patients as common barriers. Implementation of a structured assessment and referral process demonstrated that of 1,632 newly registered cancer patients,1,581 (97%) were screened for tobacco use. Among those screened, 283 (18%) were found to be tobacco users. Of identified tobacco users, 207 (73%) were advised to quit. Referral of new patients who reported using tobacco to an evidence-based cessation program increased from 0% at baseline across all three cancer centers to 64% (range = 30%–89%) during the project period.

Conclusions: Implementation of quality improvement learning collaborative models can dramatically improve delivery of guideline-based tobacco cessation treatments to cancer patients.

Introduction: Cigarette addiction results from both pharmacological effects of nicotine and the rewarding effects of associated cues, including respiratory tract sensations.

Aims: This study sought to evaluate the initial acceptability of a non-nicotine botanical formulation that provided similar respiratory tract cues.

Methods: Two active test products and matching placebos were evaluated. One test product, an e-cigarette-like device, delivered a visible aerosol upon puffing; the other test product delivered an invisible vapour at ambient temperature. Test products delivered a botanical extract with flavourings and vehicle; the placebos delivered flavourings and vehicle only. Sixteen participants had 3-h ad libitum access to each test product and associated placebos, and were deprived of combustible cigarettes for 1 h before and throughout the 3-h evaluation period. Subjects rated the satisfaction (primary outcome) and other sensory qualities of the products. Safety evaluations included pulmonary function testing and monitoring vital signs.

Results: Satisfaction ratings (seven-point scale) were significantly greater for the active e-cigarette-like condition; M = 3.18, SD = 1.04 versus M = 2.69, SD = 1.22. Safety evaluations showed no clinically significant changes.

Conclusions: The results support the potential acceptability of a non-nicotine cigarette substitute in providing satisfaction to smokers. This approach merits further evaluation for safety and acceptability in tobacco harm reduction and cessation.

Introduction: Smoking cessation treatment combining medication and counselling yields the best outcomes; however, few smokers employ both modalities.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine variables predicting treatment attendance.

Methods: This was a chart review of US military Veterans (N = 340; 89% male, 59% non-Hispanic white) referred for smoking cessation, who completed a telephone call to encourage treatment utilization. Treatment engagement was defined as attending a smoking cessation session within 30 days following telephone contact. A logistic regression analysis examined predictors (demographics, smoking variables, and psychiatric diagnoses) of treatment engagement.

Results/Findings: Greater age (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.06), more cigarettes (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.00–1.06), and higher perceived importance of quitting (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.00–1.23) predicted engaging in treatment within 30 days (all p values < 0.05).

Conclusion: Veterans who attended treatment were older, smoked more cigarettes, and perceived quitting as more important than those who did not attend. These findings are consistent with prior studies examining factors associated with treatment utilization. Results highlight the need to identify strategies for engaging into treatment smokers who are younger, smoke fewer cigarettes, and view quitting as less important.

Even though one of the public health's top achievements of the 20th century involves tobacco cessation, a disproportionate burden of tobacco-related comorbidity still affects those with mental illness (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017; Cook et al., 2014). There is evidence suggesting that psychiatric disorders are associated with an increased prevalence in cigarette smoking (Tsoi, Porwa, & Webster, 2013). One explanation for this is the potentiating effect of nicotine on dopamine receptors (Mao, Gallagher, & McGehee, 2011). Other explanations include poverty, educational advancement and industry bias in tobacco marketing (MMWR Vital Signs: Current Cigarette, 2016; CDC Morbidity and Mortality, 2013). We know that adults with mental illness smoke at rates twice that of the general population, and are nicotine-dependent at rates up to three times higher than the general population (Cook et al., 2014; Grant, Hasin, Chou, Stinson, & Dawson, 2004). Adults with mental illness comprise about 19% of the population, but smoke approximately one-third of all the cigarettes smoked (MMWR Vital Signs: Current Cigarette, 2016). In the United States, the national tobacco use prevalence is estimated at 19%; however, prevalence among those with bipolar disorder is 51%–70% and 36%–80% among those with major depressive disorder (Grant et al., 2004; King, Dube, & Tynan, 2012; Lasser et al., 2000). Despite these high rates, recent studies suggest that smokers with mental illness are highly motivated to quit (Cook et al., 2014). However, it remains rare for mental and behavioural health professionals to offer tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy and counselling to clients with psychiatric disorders.

Background: Many people with cancer continue smoking despite evidence that it negatively effects cancer treatment, worsens chemotherapy toxicity, and increases risk for a second cancer.

Aims: We examined tobacco treatment services offered to cancer patients at hospitals providing oncology services, including National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Centers (NDCCs).

Methods: We examined survey data of 6,400 U.S. hospitals from 2008 to 2015 to determine the manner in which tobacco treatment/cessation program services were provided among NDCCs and non-NDCC hospitals providing oncology services (HPOs).

Results: From 2008 to 2015, 784 responses from NDCCs and 18,281 responses from HPOs were received. NDCCs (86%) reported significantly higher tobacco treatment/cessation programs owned by the hospital compared to HPOs (68%) (p < 0.001). Among NDCCs, there was a significant increasing trend of tobacco treatment/cessation programs reported owned by the hospital, the health system, or other contractual mechanism from 2008 to 2015 (p = 0.03).

Conclusions: More than 80% of oncology providing hospitals report providing tobacco cessation programs, with higher percentages reported in NDCCs. As hospitals implement smoking cessation programs, partnerships between hospitals and cancer coalitions could help bring tobacco cessation activities to communities they both serve, and link discharged patients to these cessation resources so they can continue quit attempts that they initialised while hospitalised.