4.2 Article

Effective Timing of Introducing an Inpatient Smoking Cessation Program to Cancer Patients

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 251-258

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2022.0499

关键词

Cancer; inpatients; lung cancer; smoking cessation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By retrospectively reviewing the electronic medical records of cancer patients enrolled in an inpatient smoking cessation program, we identified factors influencing smoking cessation success. The results showed that younger age (<65 years), cohabited status, early cancer stage, and the number of counseling sessions were statistically significant factors affecting 6-month smoking cessation success.
Purpose: We aimed to identify factors influencing smoking cessation success among cancer patients registered in an inpatient smoking cessation program at a single cancer center. Materials and Methods: The electronic medical records of enrolled patients with solid cancer were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated factors associated with 6-month smoking cessation.Results: A total of 458 patients with cancer were included in this study. Their mean age was 62.9 +/- 10.3 years, and 56.3% of the par-ticipants had lung cancer. 193 (42.1%) had not yet begun their main treatment. The mean number of counseling sessions for the participants was 8.4 +/- 3.5, and 46 (10.0%) patients were prescribed smoking cessation medications. The 6-month smoking cessa-tion success rate was 48.0%. Multivariate analysis showed that younger age (<65 years), cohabited status, early stage, and the num-ber of counseling sessions were statistically significant factors affecting 6-month smoking cessation success (p<0.05). Initiation of a cessation program before cancer treatment was significantly associated with cessation success (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.70; p=0.040).Conclusion: Smoking cessation intervention must be considered when establishing a treatment plan immediately after a cancer diagnosis among smokers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据