ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Health Serv.
Sec. Implementation Science
This article is part of the Research TopicImproving and Implementing Addiction CareView all 10 articles
Integrating smoking cessation support during lung cancer diagnostic workup: A pragmatic, multicenter, cluster-randomised controlled trial
Provisionally accepted
Ingeborg Farver-Vestergaard1,2*
Kaare Bro Wellnitz3,4Ole Hilberg1,2Morten Borg1,2Helle Marie Christensen2,5Uffe Bodtger2,6Niels Lyhne3Marie Lavesen7Maria Ralli8
Anders Løkke1,2- 1Sygehus Lillebalt, Vejle, Denmark
- 2Syddansk Universitet, Odense, Denmark
- 3Aarhus Universitetshospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- 4Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark
- 5Odense Universitetshospital, Odense, Denmark
- 6Sjaelland Universitetshospital, Roskilde, Denmark
- 7Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- 8Sygehus Sonderjylland Sonderborg, Sønderborg, Denmark
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Smoking cessation at or around the time of lung cancer diagnosis is associated with improved treatment outcomes, enhanced quality of life and increased survival. However, many patients continue smoking post-diagnosis. Aim: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a national initiative in Denmark that integrated smoking cessation support into the diagnostic workup for lung cancer within a pragmatic, multicenter, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Methods: Nine Danish hospitals were cluster-randomised to either the intervention group (integrated cessation support) or the control group (usual care). The intervention was implemented in five hospitals. Eighty-six patients (intervention = 39; control = 47) who were active smokers at referral completed questionnaires assessing smoking cessation initiation, motivation, quality of life and psychosocial consequences of diagnostic workup at baseline and six-weeks follow-up. Logistic and multiple regression analyses were conducted. Additionally, 140 healthcare professionals completed a survey on cessation support practices pre-intervention, and 54 completed it post-intervention. Descriptive analyses were used to assess changes in clinical practice. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in smoking cessation initiation between the intervention and control groups (OR = 0.81 [0.41, 1.58], p = 0.53; adjusted OR = 0.79 [0.35, 1.79], p = 0.57). Among healthcare professionals in the intervention group, a larger proportion reported they "almost always" provided cessation after the implementation (35.1%) than before (18.3%). But the proportion who responded that they “almost never” provide support was also considerably larger after the implementation (13.5%) than before (3.2%). In the control group, proportions tended to shift more generally towards providing more support over time, and a considerably larger proportion reported to refer patients to external smoking cessation support at the follow-up measurement. Conclusion: The study was inconclusive, showing no significant effect of smoking cessation support during lung cancer diagnostic workup on patients’ cessation initiation, possibly influenced by selection bias and varying intervention fidelity at study sites.
Keywords: Addiction, Nicotine, respiratory disease, Cancer, implementation
Received: 31 Aug 2025; Accepted: 24 Nov 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Farver-Vestergaard, Wellnitz, Hilberg, Borg, Christensen, Bodtger, Lyhne, Lavesen, Ralli and Løkke. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Ingeborg Farver-Vestergaard
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.