Academic literature on the topic 'Cigarette smokers Australia'

Abstract Introduction Adult daily smoking prevalence in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is 2.8 times that of other Australians. There is little data on prevalence of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We measured e-cigarette use and beliefs about their harmfulness in national samples of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and of all Australian smokers. Methods The Talking About the Smokes project interviewed a nationally representative quota sample of 1301 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers between August 2013 and August 2014. The Australian Wave 9 survey of the long-running International Tobacco Control Project interviewed 1093 smokers between February and May 2013. Estimates for all Australian smokers were standardized to the age and sex distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers. Results Fewer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander than all Australian smokers had tried an e-cigarette (21% vs. 30%). This was in part because of more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers having not heard of e-cigarettes. Fewer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers than all Australian smokers agreed that e-cigarettes are less harmful than conventional cigarettes (22% vs. 50%). Conclusions Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers have used e-cigarettes. However, there is considerable misunderstanding about the relative harm of e-cigarettes compared with conventional cigarettes, in part because of the tight regulatory environment in Australia. Implications The study describes e-cigarette use and understanding in national samples of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and of all Australian smokers. Only small studies have reported on e-cigarette use in this high smoking prevalence population. Fewer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers than all Australian smokers had tried an e-cigarette and fewer agreed that e-cigarettes are less harmful than conventional cigarettes. Australian governments, health authorities, health professionals, and e-cigarette regulations should provide clearer messages that e-cigarettes are less harmful.

Abstract Introduction This study explores patterns of use of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine products among adult cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers. Along with cigarette smoking status we explore differences as a function of countries with different product regulations, gender, and age. Methods Data came from the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Wave 3 Survey conducted between February–June 2020. The analytic sample consisted of 9112 current cigarette smokers (at least monthly) and 1184 recent ex-smokers (quit cigarettes ≤ 2 years) from Australia, Canada, England, and the United States. Respondents were asked about their cigarette smoking and current use of the following non-cigarette products: combustible tobacco (cigars, cigarillos, pipe, waterpipe); noncombustible tobacco (smokeless tobacco, and heated tobacco products [HTPs]); and non-tobacco nicotine products (nicotine vaping products [NVPs], nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], and nicotine pouches). Results Overall, NVPs (13.7%) and NRT (10.9%) were the most reported nicotine products used, followed by cigars (5.3%), cigarillos (4.2%), and HTPs (3.5%). More than 21% current and recent ex-smokers of cigarettes reported using a non-tobacco nicotine product and noncombustible product, with respondents in England reporting the highest levels of use (>26%). Males, younger respondents, and current non-daily cigarette smokers were more likely to use non-cigarette nicotine products. Notably, 11.6% of ex-cigarette smokers were using other combustible tobacco. Conclusion Considerable percentages of current cigarette smokers and ex-smokers use non-cigarette nicotine products, and there are unexpectedly high levels of use of other combustible products by those recent ex-smokers of cigarettes which is concerning and has important implications for definitions of smoking cessation. Implications The tobacco product market has evolved to include new products which add to existing non-cigarette tobacco products creating a much more diverse nicotine market. This brief report provides a snapshot of use of various combustible and noncombustible nicotine-containing products among current cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers in four western countries. Our results indicate that use of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine products among these cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers is not low, particularly among males, younger and non-daily cigarette smokers. Use of other combustible tobacco among respondents that recently quit cigarette smoking is concerning and has important implications for definitions of smoking cessation. Increased emphasis on researching non-cigarette nicotine product use is warranted in tobacco control generally and smoking cessation in particular.

ObjectiveWe sought to quantify the impact of vaping introduction on cigarette smoking across settings with varied regulatory approaches to vaping.DesignInterrupted time series analysis, adjusted for cigarette tax levels.SettingFour Canadian provinces, UK and Australia.ParticipantsEntire population of smokers in each country.InterventionsThe year that vaping was widely introduced in each country.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome is cigarette consumption per adult, and the secondary outcome is smoking prevalence among young adults.ResultsBased on allowable nicotine levels, restrictions on e-cigarette advertising, sales and access, and taxation, the least to most restrictive jurisdictions were, in order, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia (all in Canada), UK and Australia. In most, but not all, settings where higher nicotine content was permitted in vaping products (66 mg/mL), vaping introduction led to a reduction in cigarette consumption per capita (Ontario: p=0.037, Quebec: p=0.007) or in smoking prevalence among young adults (Alberta men, p=0.027; Quebec men, p=0.008; Quebec women, p=0.008). In the UK, where the maximum permitted nicotine content in vaping products was 20 mg/mL, vaping introduction slowed the declining trend in cigarette smoking among men aged 16–24 years (p=0.031) and 25–34 years (p=0.002) but not in cigarette consumption per adult. In Australia, where nicotine was not permitted in e-cigarettes, e-cigarette introduction slowed the declining trend in cigarette consumption per capita and in smoking prevalence among men aged 18–24 years (cigarette consumption: p=0.015, prevalence: p=0.044).ConclusionIn environments that enable substitution of cigarettes with e-cigarettes, e-cigarette introduction reduces overall cigarette consumption. Thus, to reduce cigarette smoking, policies that encourage adults to substitute cigarette smoking with vaping should be considered.

ObjectiveWe examined the roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco product market in Australia from 2001 to 2016. Trends in use of RYO tobacco among Australian adults were examined for 2004–2016.MethodsChanges in brand availability, pouch sizes and lowest priced products were noted from trade magazines. Prevalence of smoking of RYO and factory-made (FM) cigarettes among those 18 years and older was obtained from five consecutive waves of a large (n>21 000) nationally representative triennial survey from 2004 to 2016. Trends in cigarette use were examined using logistic regression.ResultsChanges in the Australian RYO market from 2001 to 2016 included a doubling in the number of brands, progressively smaller pouch sizes with smaller increases in price than in traditional RYO and comparable FM products. While use of FM cigarettes declined between 2004 and 2016, the proportion of adults exclusively using RYO tobacco linearly increased with each survey wave (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.05, p<0.001), from 1.2% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2016. Exclusive RYO use among current smokers increased more among females than males, and young adults compared with those aged 30 years or older, but did not differ by socioeconomic status.ConclusionsIn contrast to substantial declines in FM cigarette use, exclusive use of RYO cigarettes increased in Australians since 2004, particularly among females and young adults. This has corresponded to a period of substantial changes to the RYO market, including progressively smaller and relatively more affordable products. Policy action to reduce price-related marketing and correct consumer misinformation about RYO tobacco are urgently required.

AbstractIntroductionHard-core smokers have been identified as a potential public health challenge. The trans-theoretical model lacks the specificity to identify hard-core smokers. The precaution adoption process model (PAPM) is a stage-based behaviour change model which includes ‘no intent to quit’ as a distinct stage and so may be useful in identifying hard-core smokers.AimsThe aim of this study was to apply the PAPM to a community based sample of smokers to determine whether it provides a useful approach to identifying hard-core smokers.MethodsWe surveyed smokers in Australia who were recruited through social media and an online data collection agency.ResultsThe sample included 336 current smokers, 11.9% were in Stage 4 of the PAPM – i.e. had decided not to quit. Stage 4 smokers are more resistant to quitting and marked by their similarities to hard-core smokers. This is further amplified when addressing Stage 4 smokers with no previous quit attempt.ConclusionsStage 4 smokers with no previous quit attempts are aligned with a hard-core smoker profile with higher levels of nicotine dependence, greater cigarette consumption and low socio-economic status. Further research is required to determine if PAPM is a valid predictive model for identifying hard-core smokers in clinical practice.

Although cigarette smoking rate has declined consistently in the past four decades in Australia, the smoking habit remains popular among some groups. From a marketer&rsquo;s vantage point, this slowed reduction portrays the less effective implementation of anti-smoking campaigns in Australia. Ideally, each anti-smoking intervention ought to break the chain of marginal utility and lead to a sharp or stepped decline of smoking prevalence. This paper explores the inadequacies of fear factored anti-smoking campaigns and some prevailing reasons why young adult smokers continue to smoke. This paper begins with a review and categorisation of the different reasons of why young adults continue to smoke. These reasons draw on addiction, stress, habit, social-economic factors, self-identity and peer pressure. The rationale for studying these anti-smoking initiatives is to evaluate if these initiatives address the issues of smoking amongst young adults. This paper is significant for formulating effective anti-smoking messages and policy developments in Australia.

Objective. To establish the trends in prevalence, and correlates, of roll-your-own (RYO) use in Canada, USA, UK and Australia, 2002–2008.Methods. Participants were 19,456 cigarette smokers interviewed during the longitudinal International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four-Country Survey in Canada, USA, UK, and Australia.Results. “Predominant” RYO use (i.e., >50%of cigarettes smoked) increased significantly in the UK and USA as a proportion of all cigarette use (bothP<.001) and in all countries as a proportion of any RYO use (allP<.010). Younger, financially stressed smokers are disproportionately contributing to “some” use (i.e., ≤50%of cigarettes smoked). Relative cost was the major reason given for using RYO, and predominant RYO use is consistently and significantly associated with low income.Conclusions. RYO market trends reflect the price advantages accruing to RYO (a product of favourable taxation regimes in some jurisdictions reinforced by the enhanced control over the amount of tobacco used), especially following the impact of the Global Financial Crisis; the availability of competing low-cost alternatives to RYO; accessibility of duty-free RYO tobacco; and tobacco industry niche marketing strategies. If policy makers want to ensure that the RYO option does not inhibit the fight to end the tobacco epidemic, especially amongst the disadvantaged, they need to reduce the price advantage, target additional health messages at (young) RYO users, and challenge niche marketing of RYO by the industry.

Aims: To review population surveys to assess (a) prevalence of the use of NRT for smoking reduction (SR) and temporary abstinence (TA) and (b) how far this is associated with attempts to stop smoking, smoking cessation and reduction in cigarette consumption.Methods: An electronic search was undertaken of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Articles were selected if they (1) assessed whether smokers had used or were currently using NRT for SR and/or TA; (2) involved smokers who had not taken part in a harm reduction programme; and (3) assessed prevalence and/or association of SR and/or TA with reductions in cigarette consumption and/or attempts to stop smoking and/or with smoking cessation. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and results were extracted independently by two researchers.Results: Data were available from five countries (US, UK, Canada, Switzerland and Australia). Between 1% and 23% of smokers reported having ever used NRT for smoking reduction and between 2% and 14% during periods of temporary abstinence. Use of NRT for SR and/or TA was associated with little or no reduction in cigarette consumption. There was some evidence that it was positively associated with attempts to stop smoking and smoking cessation.Conclusion: In smoking populations use of NRT to aid SR and in situations where smoking is not permitted appears to be having little effect on achieving a reduction in cigarette consumption but does not undermine cessation and may promote it.

Over the past five years there has been a strong move toward the development, evaluation and implementation of brief interventions for smokers and excessive drinkers. In this article we review some of the issues related to brief interventions which include: the range of the methods used, the channels and settings of their delivery, the evidence available for their effectiveness, and some recent research priority-setting exercises. We conclude with likely further directions.

Abstract Introduction There is limited research on the role of flavors in nicotine vaping products (NVPs) in relation to smoking. We examined patterns of flavor use in NVPs in relation to progression toward quitting. Aims and Methods Data come from 886 concurrent users of NVPs (at least weekly) and cigarettes who were first surveyed in 2016 and then successfully recontacted in 2018 as part of the ITC 4CV Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States. Participants were asked about their main vaping flavor categorized as: (1) tobacco or unflavored, (2) menthol or mint flavored, and (3) “sweet” flavors (eg, fruit or candy). We examined whether flavor was associated with progression toward quitting smoking between survey years. Results Overall, 11.1% of baseline concurrent users quit smoking by 2018. Compared with users of tobacco flavors, those vaping “sweet” flavors were more likely to quit smoking between surveys (13.8% vs. 9.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–2.58, p &lt; .05), but those using menthol flavors were no more likely to quit smoking (8.3% vs. 9.6%, aOR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.43–1.47, p = .69). Among those who had quit smoking in 2018, 52.0% were still vaping, which was lower than the 65.8% among continuing smokers (aOR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.39–0.92, p = .02). Sweet flavor users were no more likely to continue vaping compared with tobacco flavor users, either for those continuing smoking or those having quit smoking by 2018. There was a net shift away from tobacco flavor among those who continued to vape at follow-up. Conclusions Use of fruit and other sweet flavored e-liquids is positively related to smokers’ transition away from cigarettes. Implications With multiple jurisdictions considering limiting or banning the sale of flavored NVPs, it is important to consider how such policies may impact smokers using NVPs to transition away from cigarette smoking. Our results indicate that vapers who used sweet flavors were more likely to transition away from cigarette smoking and quit cigarette use, at least in the short term, compared with those who used tobacco or unflavored NVPs. Randomized clinical trials are needed to establish if the observed association between use of flavored e-liquids and smoking cessation is due to self-selection or is truly causal.

This qualitative study into the effective use of fear arousal in social marketing advertising, focused on exploring gender differences in smokers' attitudes towards threats in anti-smoking messages in the 40 to 50 year old age group. This age group of smokers has received relatively little attention in the fear arousal literature to date, presumably because their 'hard core' attitudes are perceived as difficult to change by social marketing and medical practitioners. The key purpose of this study was to explore the attitudinal responses of male and female smokers in the 40 to 50 year old age group to anti-smoking messages and in particular to those using death and non-death threats. Unexpected findings from a previous study (Henley 1997) were the first to indicate that significant gender differences occurred in this age group to anti-smoking messages. Henley's (1997) study focused on death versus non-death threats in social marketing messages in two age groups of smokers: 16 to 25 and 40 to 50 year aids. Response to the death threat, 'Quit smoking or you'll die of emphysema' was compared to the response of the non-death threat, 'Quit smoking or you'll be disabled by emphysema', in producing change in attitude, motivation and intention to adopt the recommended behaviour. The appropriateness of these threat messages was considered in relation to male and female smokers in two age groups, 16-25 years and 40-50 years. Henley (1997) found that significant differences occurred between older male and female smokers' responses to death and non-death threats in social marketing messages, and that in general, 40-50 year old males responded more to death threats and 40-50 year old females responded more to non-death threats, with the exception of death threats and loved ones. Focus groups were the qualitative method used for data collection in this study. Data was collected from four focus groups (2 male and 2 female), that consisted of 40 to 50 year old regular smokers. Group interviews were conducted as free flowing discussions interspersed with questions pertaining to the major objectives of the study. Projective questioning techniques were used to draw out participants' deeply held beliefs rather than their more easily accessible altitudes. As such, they were not asked direct questions pertaining to attitudes or specifically prompted for response to death and non-death threats. The men and women in this study fitted the characteristics of 'hard core', precontemplative smokers due to their long term smoking behaviour and low-involvement with anti-smoking information. Data were analysed manually according to themes in relation to the major objectives with special consideration given to gender differences that emerged. Attitudes were examined according to emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses. Gender differences are discussed in relation to how responses were articulated. Significant gender differences occurred in attitudinal response to threat in antismoking messages. In particular, gender differences occurred in relation to perceived self-efficacy, and strategies employed to cope with cognitive dissonance and negative emotions that emerged from exposure to anti-smoking messages. Men in this study revealed low levels of perceived self-efficacy, self-esteem and a sense of helplessness and powerlessness over their smoking behaviour. Discussions revealed the men had adopted maladaptive coping responses such as avoidance behaviour and denial in relation to anti-smoking messages. Women in this study revealed higher levels of self-efficacy and derived more benefits from smoking than men. However, their responses indicated anger towards patriarchal and authoritarian anti-smoking messages. Data also revealed that women had adopted maladaptive coping responses such as defiance, reactance and avoidance behaviour in relation to anti-smoking messages. An unexpected finding in this study was that both genders were clearly more accepting of positively framed anti-smoking messages that engendered self-esteem and higher efficacy. The implications for practitioners and researchers are that market segmentation is advisable for older smokers. 'Hard core' smokers may be a difficult group to reach via negatively framed anti-smoking messages and it is possible that positively framed messages may offer a solution. Further quantitative research is indicated into the relative effectiveness of positively framed messages and 'hard core' smokers.

The link between exposure to lead and children’s cognitive problems was implied in the earliest medical reports of frank lead poisoning of young children in Australia in the 1800s (Lin-Fu 1992). Children with acute severe toxicity of lead (Pb) are now rarely seen in the United States. However, millions of children may have subclinical neurobehavioral disorders associated with chronic low-level exposure to lead, representing a major public health concern (Bellinger 2008a). Lead is a nonessential metal that is recognized as a source of toxic exposure, with the developing nervous system particularly vulnerable. Because of this, U.S. regulations limiting the lead content of gasoline and household paint have led to a gradual reduction of the average blood lead concentration of Americans over the last three decades. Average blood lead levels of children in the United States dropped an estimated 78% from 1976 to 1991 (Brody et al. 1994; Caldwell et al. 2009). Despite these reductions in exposure to lead, new advances in research techniques have documented harmful consequences associated with lower blood lead levels. This raises the possibility that there is no threshold for occurrence of lead-induced toxicity. Bellinger (2008a) refers to “the silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental disorders resulting from children’s continuing exposure to low levels of lead.” The developing brain may be more sensitive to exposure to lead than the adult. Since the pioneering work of Needleman and colleagues (1979), a large scientific literature has documented the deleterious effects of pre- and neonatal exposure to lead. Decrements in IQ scores have proven to be among the most sensitive and consistent consequences of a child’s exposure to lead, but other cognitive and behavioral changes have been described as well, including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Among the important current sources of children’s exposure to lead is household dust (Dixon et al. 2009) the lead content in old water pipes, batteries, and from contamination by numerous industrial processes. Pre and postnatal exposure to cigarette smoke is a cofactor with lead exposure in children’s conduct disorders (Braun et al. 2008). Diagnosis of lead-induced disorders involves the determination of exposure to lead and the atomic absorption assay of lead in whole blood.

Background Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide.(1) It is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia (12,741 cases diagnosed in 2018) and the leading cause of cancer death.(2) The number of years of potential life lost to lung cancer in Australia is estimated to be 58,450, similar to that of colorectal and breast cancer combined.(3) While tobacco control strategies are most effective for disease prevention in the general population, early detection via low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations is a viable option for detecting asymptomatic disease in current (13%) and former (24%) Australian smokers.(4) The purpose of this Evidence Check review is to identify and analyse existing and emerging evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals to guide future program and policy planning. Evidence Check questions This review aimed to address the following questions: 1. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 2. What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 3. What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? 4. What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Summary of methods The authors searched the peer-reviewed literature across three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase) for existing systematic reviews and original studies published between 1 January 2009 and 8 August 2019. Fifteen systematic reviews (of which 8 were contemporary) and 64 original publications met the inclusion criteria set across the four questions. Key findings Question 1: What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? There is sufficient evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of combined (pooled) data from screening trials (of high-risk individuals) to indicate that LDCT examination is clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality. In 2011, the landmark National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST, a large-scale randomised controlled trial [RCT] conducted in the US) reported a 20% (95% CI 6.8% – 26.7%; P=0.004) relative reduction in mortality among long-term heavy smokers over three rounds of annual screening. High-risk eligibility criteria was defined as people aged 55–74 years with a smoking history of ≥30 pack-years (years in which a smoker has consumed 20-plus cigarettes each day) and, for former smokers, ≥30 pack-years and have quit within the past 15 years.(5) All-cause mortality was reduced by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2% – 13.6%; P=0.02). Initial data from the second landmark RCT, the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (known as the NELSON trial), have found an even greater reduction of 26% (95% CI, 9% – 41%) in lung cancer mortality, with full trial results yet to be published.(6, 7) Pooled analyses, including several smaller-scale European LDCT screening trials insufficiently powered in their own right, collectively demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91).(8) Despite the reduction in all-cause mortality found in the NLST, pooled analyses of seven trials found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00).(8) However, cancer-specific mortality is currently the most relevant outcome in cancer screening trials. These seven trials demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of early stage cancers in LDCT groups compared with controls (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.43–3.03). Thus, when considering results across mortality outcomes and early stage cancers diagnosed, LDCT screening is considered to be clinically effective. Question 2: What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? The harms of LDCT lung cancer screening include false positive tests and the consequences of unnecessary invasive follow-up procedures for conditions that are eventually diagnosed as benign. While LDCT screening leads to an increased frequency of invasive procedures, it does not result in greater mortality soon after an invasive procedure (in trial settings when compared with the control arm).(8) Overdiagnosis, exposure to radiation, psychological distress and an impact on quality of life are other known harms. Systematic review evidence indicates the benefits of LDCT screening are likely to outweigh the harms. The potential harms are likely to be reduced as refinements are made to LDCT screening protocols through: i) the application of risk predication models (e.g. the PLCOm2012), which enable a more accurate selection of the high-risk population through the use of specific criteria (beyond age and smoking history); ii) the use of nodule management algorithms (e.g. Lung-RADS, PanCan), which assist in the diagnostic evaluation of screen-detected nodules and cancers (e.g. more precise volumetric assessment of nodules); and, iii) more judicious selection of patients for invasive procedures. Recent evidence suggests a positive LDCT result may transiently increase psychological distress but does not have long-term adverse effects on psychological distress or health-related quality of life (HRQoL). With regards to smoking cessation, there is no evidence to suggest screening participation invokes a false sense of assurance in smokers, nor a reduction in motivation to quit. The NELSON and Danish trials found no difference in smoking cessation rates between LDCT screening and control groups. Higher net cessation rates, compared with general population, suggest those who participate in screening trials may already be motivated to quit. Question 3: What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? There are no systematic reviews that capture the main components of recent major lung cancer screening trials and programs. We extracted evidence from original studies and clinical guidance documents and organised this into key groups to form a concise set of components for potential implementation of a national lung cancer screening program in Australia: 1. Identifying the high-risk population: recruitment, eligibility, selection and referral 2. Educating the public, people at high risk and healthcare providers; this includes creating awareness of lung cancer, the benefits and harms of LDCT screening, and shared decision-making 3. Components necessary for health services to deliver a screening program: a. Planning phase: e.g. human resources to coordinate the program, electronic data systems that integrate medical records information and link to an established national registry b. Implementation phase: e.g. human and technological resources required to conduct LDCT examinations, interpretation of reports and communication of results to participants c. Monitoring and evaluation phase: e.g. monitoring outcomes across patients, radiological reporting, compliance with established standards and a quality assurance program 4. Data reporting and research, e.g. audit and feedback to multidisciplinary teams, reporting outcomes to enhance international research into LDCT screening 5. Incorporation of smoking cessation interventions, e.g. specific programs designed for LDCT screening or referral to existing community or hospital-based services that deliver cessation interventions. Most original studies are single-institution evaluations that contain descriptive data about the processes required to establish and implement a high-risk population-based screening program. Across all studies there is a consistent message as to the challenges and complexities of establishing LDCT screening programs to attract people at high risk who will receive the greatest benefits from participation. With regards to smoking cessation, evidence from one systematic review indicates the optimal strategy for incorporating smoking cessation interventions into a LDCT screening program is unclear. There is widespread agreement that LDCT screening attendance presents a ‘teachable moment’ for cessation advice, especially among those people who receive a positive scan result. Smoking cessation is an area of significant research investment; for instance, eight US-based clinical trials are now underway that aim to address how best to design and deliver cessation programs within large-scale LDCT screening programs.(9) Question 4: What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Assessing the value or cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening involves a complex interplay of factors including data on effectiveness and costs, and institutional context. A key input is data about the effectiveness of potential and current screening programs with respect to case detection, and the likely outcomes of treating those cases sooner (in the presence of LDCT screening) as opposed to later (in the absence of LDCT screening). Evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening programs has been summarised in two systematic reviews. We identified a further 13 studies—five modelling studies, one discrete choice experiment and seven articles—that used a variety of methods to assess cost-effectiveness. Three modelling studies indicated LDCT screening was cost-effective in the settings of the US and Europe. Two studies—one from Australia and one from New Zealand—reported LDCT screening would not be cost-effective using NLST-like protocols. We anticipate that, following the full publication of the NELSON trial, cost-effectiveness studies will likely be updated with new data that reduce uncertainty about factors that influence modelling outcomes, including the findings of indeterminate nodules. Gaps in the evidence There is a large and accessible body of evidence as to the effectiveness (Q1) and harms (Q2) of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Nevertheless, there are significant gaps in the evidence about the program components that are required to implement an effective LDCT screening program (Q3). Questions about LDCT screening acceptability and feasibility were not explicitly included in the scope. However, as the evidence is based primarily on US programs and UK pilot studies, the relevance to the local setting requires careful consideration. The Queensland Lung Cancer Screening Study provides feasibility data about clinical aspects of LDCT screening but little about program design. The International Lung Screening Trial is still in the recruitment phase and findings are not yet available for inclusion in this Evidence Check. The Australian Population Based Screening Framework was developed to “inform decision-makers on the key issues to be considered when assessing potential screening programs in Australia”.(10) As the Framework is specific to population-based, rather than high-risk, screening programs, there is a lack of clarity about transferability of criteria. However, the Framework criteria do stipulate that a screening program must be acceptable to “important subgroups such as target participants who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from disadvantaged groups and people with a disability”.(10) An extensive search of the literature highlighted that there is very little information about the acceptability of LDCT screening to these population groups in Australia. Yet they are part of the high-risk population.(10) There are also considerable gaps in the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in different settings, including Australia. The evidence base in this area is rapidly evolving and is likely to include new data from the NELSON trial and incorporate data about the costs of targeted- and immuno-therapies as these treatments become more widely available in Australia.