Cited by 7Smoking Behavior and CessationElectronic Health Records SystemsGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Assessing Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Moonshot–funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Open access
D'Angelo, Heather, Land, Stephanie R., Mayne, Rachel Grana·2021·Cancer Prevention Research

Abstract

Assessing tobacco product use and delivering tobacco dependence treatment is an essential part of cancer care; however, little is known about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarette use assessment in cancer treatment settings. Given the importance of tailoring tobacco treatment, it is critical to understand how ENDS use is assessed in the electronic health record (EHR) in cancer care settings. Two questionnaires were completed by tobacco treatment program leads at 42 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31, 2019). Items assessed how often smoking status and ENDS use were recorded in the EHR. An open-ended item recorded the text and response categories of each center's ENDS assessment question. All 42 centers assessed smoking status at both time periods. Twenty-five centers (59.5%) assessed ENDS use in the first half of 2019, increasing to 30 (71.4%) in the last half of 2019. By the end of 2019, 17 centers assessed smoking status at every patient visit while six assessed ENDS use at every visit. A checkbox/drop-down menu rather than scripted text was used at 30 centers (73.2%) for assessing smoking status and at 18 centers (42.9%) for assessing ENDS use. Our findings underscore the gap in systematic ENDS use screening in cancer treatment settings. Requiring ENDS use measures in the EHR as part of quality measures and providing scripted text scripts to providers may increase rates of ENDS use assessment at more cancer centers. Prevention Relevance: This study identifies a gap in the systematic assessment of ENDS use among patients seen at 42 NCI-Designated cancer centers. Requiring the systematic assessment of both ENDS use and use of other tobacco products can inform evidence-based treatment of tobacco dependence and lead to improved cancer treatment outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-21-0105

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing approaches for evaluating the impact of CDS on provider EHR-use activities and clinical workflow heavily rely on manual data collected through surveys, qualitative interviews, direct observation, and audio/video recording.

    “Existing approaches for evaluating the impact of CDS on provider EHR-use activities and clinical workflow heavily rely on manual data collected through surveys, qualitative interviews, direct observation, and audio/video recording.10,13,16–19”

    From Electronic health record activity changes around new decision support implementation: monitoring using audit logs and topic modeling (2025) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Methods describe questionnaires about how cancer centers record ENDS use in the EHR, and the Discussion calls this a longitudinal survey of EHR assessment. Neither section addresses approaches for evaluating the impact of clinical decision support on providers’ EHR use or workflow. Searches for CDS, workflow evaluation, interviews, observation, and audio/video recording found no passage making the attributed point. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [2]Boyd P, Lowry M, Morris KL, Land SR, Agurs-Collins T, Hall K, et al Health behaviors of cancer survivors and population controls from the National Health Interview Survey (2005–2015). JNCI Cancer Spectr 2020; 4: pkaa043. 33134825 PMC7583145
  2. [3]Salloum RG, Getz KR, Tan ASL, Carter-Harris L, Young-Wolff KC, George TJ, et al Use of electronic cigarettes among cancer survivors in the U.S. Am J Prev Med 2016; 51: 762– 6. 27242079
  3. [4]Salloum RG, Huo J, Lee J-H, Lee J, Dallery J, George T, et al Tobacco and e-cigarette use among cancer survivors in the United States. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0226110. 31815948 PMC6901228
  4. [5]Antwi GO, Lohrmann DK, Jayawardene W, Chow A, Obeng CS, Sayegh AM. Associations between e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use among U.S. cancer survivors: implications for research and practice. J Cancer Surviv 2019; 13: 316– 25. 30955182
  5. [6]National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, Eaton DL, Kwan LY, Stratton K, editors. Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (US); 2018. 29894118
  6. [7]Gotts JE, Jordt SE, McConnell R, Tarran R. What are the respiratory effects of e-cigarettes? BMJ 2019; 366: l5275. 31570493 PMC7850161
  7. [8]Brandon TH, Goniewicz ML, Hanna NH, Hatsukami DK, Herbst RS, Hobin JA, et al Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21: 514– 25. 25573384
  8. [9]Land SR, Toll BA, Moinpour CM, Mitchell SA, Ostroff JS, Hatsukami DK, et al Research priorities, measures, and recommendations for assessment of tobacco use in clinical cancer research. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 1907– 13. 26888828 PMC4861174
  9. [10]Young-Wolff KC, Klebaner D, Folck B, Tan ASL, Fogelberg R, Sarovar V, et al Documentation of e-cigarette use and associations with smoking from 2012 to 2015 in an integrated healthcare delivery system. Prev Med 2018; 109: 113– 8. 29360481 PMC7004208
  10. [11]Winden TJ, Chen ES, Wang Y, Sarkar IN, Carter EW, Melton GB. Towards the standardized documentation of e-cigarette use in the electronic health record for population health surveillance and research. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 2015; 2015: 199– 203. 26306269 PMC4525250
  11. [13]Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and final policy changes and fiscal year 2021 rates; quality reporting and medicare and medicaid promoting interoperability programs requirements for eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals. Fed Regist 2020; 85 FR §58432. 30192475
  12. [14]Jose T, Hays JT, Warner DO. Improved documentation of electronic cigarette use in an electronic health record. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 5908. PMC7460036 32823985
  13. [15]Borderud SP, Li Y, Burkhalter JE, Sheffer CE, Ostroff JS. Electronic cigarette use among patients with cancer: characteristics of electronic cigarette users and their smoking cessation outcomes. Cancer 2014; 120: 3527– 35. 25252116 PMC5642904
  14. [16]Cummings KM, Dresler CM, Field JK, Fox J, Gritz ER, Hanna NH, et al E-cigarettes and cancer patients. J Thorac Oncol 2014; 9: 438– 41. 24736063 PMC4040965
  15. [18]Rojewski AM, Bailey SR, Bernstein SL, Cooperman NA, Gritz ER, Karam-Hage MA, et al Considering systemic barriers to treating tobacco use in clinical settings in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res 2019; 21: 1453– 61. 29917118 PMC6941704
  16. [19]Warren GW, Marshall JR, Cummings KM, Toll B, Gritz ER, Hutson A, et al Practice patterns and perceptions of thoracic oncology providers on tobacco use and cessation in cancer patients. J Thorac Oncol 2013; 8: 543– 8. 23529191 PMC3628367
  17. [20]Simmons VN, Litvin EB, Patel RD, Jacobsen PB, McCaffrey JC, Bepler G, et al Patient-provider communication and perspectives on smoking cessation and relapse in the oncology setting. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 77: 398– 403. 19846270 PMC2787754
  18. [21]Jose T, Ohde JW, Hays JT, Burke MV, Warner DO. Design and pilot implementation of an electronic health record-based system to automatically refer cancer patients to Tobacco Use Treatment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 4054. PMC7312526 32517176
  19. [22]Singh B, Hrywna M, Wackowski OA, Delnevo CD, Jane Lewis M, Steinberg MB. Knowledge, recommendation, and beliefs of e-cigarettes among physicians involved in tobacco cessation: A qualitative study. Prev Med Rep 2017; 8: 25– 29. 28831370 PMC5555092
  20. [23]Hurst S, Conway M. Exploring physician attitudes regarding electronic documentation of E-cigarette use: A qualitative study. Tob Use Insights 2018; 11:1179173X18782879. PMC6055248 30046257
  21. [24]Ramsey AT, Chiu A, Baker T, Smock N, Chen J, Lester T, et al Care-paradigm shift promoting smoking cessation treatment among cancer center patients via a low-burden strategy, Electronic Health Record-enabled evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. Transl Behav Med 2020; 10: 1504– 14. 31313808 PMC7796708

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
D'Angelo, H., Land, S. R., & Mayne, R. G.
Affiliations
  • 1Health Communications and Informatics Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
Venue
Cancer Prevention Research
Published
2021-06-14
Volume
14
Issue
8
Pages
763-766
ISSN
  • 1940-6207 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-6215
OpenAlex
W3166954745
Cited by
7
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Prevention Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
HHS | NIH | National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
electronic cigarettes, tobacco use screening, electronic health records, cancer centers, tobacco dependence treatment, smoking status assessment, tobacco cessation, quality metrics
MeSH terms
Tobacco Smoking, Cancer Care Facilities, Financing, Government, Government Programs, Humans, Neoplasms, Preventive Health Services, United States, Smoking Cessation, National Cancer Institute (U.S.), Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review