This paper delves into the evidence-based practice problem encapsulated in the pivotal question: “Among adult smokers, do ongoing smoking cessation strategies and interventions reduce the prevalence of lung cancer within five years of continuous follow-up?” This is a significant problem, given its damaging influence on the nation and economy through high healthcare costs impact besides low output. With many options for smoking cessation, including cognitive-behavioural therapy to pharmacological intervention, offering some hope, this work investigates the ins and outs of solving the problem.
Evidence-based Practice Problem Discussion
The chosen problem is that cigarette smoking leads to a high prevalence of lung cancer. Statistics show that the risk associated with active smoking is stupendous. The latter implies that individuals who smoke cigarettes and tobacco are at least 15-30 times more likely to contract lung cancer or even die from it compared to nonsmokers (Al Achkar et al., 2020). This risk is further underscored by estimates demonstrating that smoking causes approximately 90% of lung cancer cases in men and about 80 %of those in women (Al Achkar et al.,2020).
Significance of the Selected Evidence-Based Practice Problem
The impact of the evidence-based practice problem is highlighted by disturbing statistics and potential positive results emanating from appropriate intervention. Globally, over one million people die of lung cancer each year, demonstrating the life-threatening consequences (Gourlay et al., 2021). This issue is a private health problem and a social and economic burden. Without the appropriate interventions, individuals and their families suffer from the increased cost of medication. Costs associated with these diseases may precipitate poverty and poor productivity. Further, the social implication is far-reaching, affecting families and communities.
Addressing this problem can be seen in the positive results that follow interventions. Various smoking cessation interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy, motivational interviewing, support groups and pharmacological aids have proved to be effective in minimizing the number of relapses as well as reducing emerging cases of lung cancer. With efficient interventions, the pressure off healthcare systems can be reduced while individuals’ quality of life increases and provide a complete elimination from lung cancer-related mortality rates. With thorough management of the smoking epidemic, we can envision tomorrow filled with lower cases of lung cancer, healthy populations and a lighter burden on healthcare facilities.
PICOT Question Discussion
The PICOT question is formulated as follows:
“Among adult smokers (P), do ongoing smoking cessation strategies and interventions (I) compared to no intervention (C) reduce the prevalence of lung cancer (O) within five years of continuous follow-up (T)?”
The PICOT question developed for the evidence-based practice problem of the association between cigarette smoking and the increased risk of lung cancer is as follows:
Population (P)
This selection is composed of adult smokers who are more prone to suffer from lung cancer.
Intervention (I)
The different treatment options studied represent various interventions; these include cognitive-behavioural therapy, motivational interviewing support groups, face-to-face therapists and health education campaigns. Other pharmacological aids that include nicotine replacement therapies (nasal sprays, oral inhalers, gum) and drugs incl, including bupropion SR varenicline, are also considered.
Comparison (C)
The comparison is based on assessing current smoking cessation strategies and interventions versus no intervention. This makes it possible to evaluate the performance of such approaches in lowering lung cancer prevalence.
Outcome (O)
The targeted outcome is the reduction in lung cancer prevalence among the adult smoking population after five years of continuous follow-up.
Timeframe (T)
The course of the interventions, especially cognitive therapy sessions, is critical for evaluating their long-term efficiencies in lowering relapses and avoiding the progression of smoking behaviour.
The three Articles Selected
Kotz et al., 2020: Smoking Cessation Attempts and Methods in Germany
Smoking cessation trials are sparsely mentioned in this study, as only 19.0% of smokers undertake annual attempts to stop smoking. Most importantly, only 13.0% of these attempts used evidence-based methods. The findings highlight a significant gap in the use of effective smoking cessation techniques among smokers (Kotz et al., 2020b). This directly connects to the PICOT question, indicating that one needs to compare ongoing smoking cessation interventions with no intervention for decreasing lung cancer prevalence in a specified time.
Moldovanu et al., 2021: Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Efforts
The paper identifies the connection between lung cancer screening and smoking cessation. It shows different termination rates in screening trials, indicating the intricacy of getting positive results (Moldovanu et al., 2021b). The finding that not all screening results conclusively affected smoking behaviour also highlights the importance of evaluating such interventions further in contingent with lung cancer screening.
de Ruiter et al., 2022: Smoking Cessation Training and Treatment in Cancer Centers
The paper discusses the importance of smoking cessation training and treatment in cancer centres. It shows that cancer survivors, especially smokers, do not know the effect of smoking on treatment outcomes (de Ruiter et al., 2022b). The 5 A’s model in the study stresses patient readiness to quit smoking and provides evidence-based treatment.
Search Strategy
To find the three articles, I used a rigorous search method on PubMed with pertinent keywords and criteria. The main terms were “smoking cessation,” “lung cancer screening,” and“cancer centre smoking cessation.” These. The search was initially designed to be pretty broad so as not to miss articles detailing the connection between smoking cessation and lung cancer. To make the search more precise, I used special filters in PubMed that limited publication dates of articles to those from five years ago. This temporal limitation was to ensure that the chosen articles were current and provided insight into recent trends in research. Besides, I chose English articles to satisfy the language requirements.
The search strategy included critically evaluating the relevance of each article title, abstract and keywords. Studies that specifically addressed the effectiveness of current smoking cessation programs and their relation to lung cancer incidence or adaptation in cancer centres were given priority.
In conclusion, the study of smoking cessation approaches and their relationship with lung cancer rates reveals a complex picture. Considering the general theme addressed by each of these articles, it is evident that smoking cessation among adults calls for immediate interventions to prevent lung cancer. The statistics elaborate on smoking prevalence, utilization of evidence-based methods and socioeconomic features controlling cessation efforts. The importance of the problem in evidence-based practice is that it could be used to relieve pressure on health systems and increase overall wellness by slowing down smoking-related lung cancer rates. The interventions discussed, including cognitive behavioural therapy and pharmacological aid, highlight the various strategies associated with smoking cessation. However, without such interventions, repercussions affect individuals, societal health and economic factors.
References
Al Achkar, M., Marchand, L., Thompson, M., Chow, L. Q., Revere, D., & Baldwin, L. (2020). Unmet needs and opportunities for improving care for patients with advanced lung cancer on targeted therapies: A qualitative study. BMJ Open, 10(3), e032639. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032639
De Ruiter, W. K., Barker, M., Rahimi, A., Ivanova, A., Zawertailo, L., Melamed, O. C., & Selby, P. (2022b). Smoking cessation training and treatment: options for cancer centres. Current Oncology, 29(4), 2252–2262. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29040183
Gourlay, E., Atikins, A., & Grundy, S. (2021). Should patients with an unknown smoking status be routinely invited for targeted lung health checks? Lung Cancer, 156, S24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5002(21)00257-9
Kotz, D., Batra, A., & Kastaun, S. (2020b). Smoking cessation attempts and common strategies employed. Deutsches Arzteblatt International. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2020.0007
Moldovanu, D., De Koning, H. J., & Van Der Aalst, C. M. (2021b). Lung cancer screening and smoking cessation efforts. Translational Lung Cancer Research, 10(2), 1099–1109. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-20-899
write