Analysis All quantitative data were entered into SPSS 17.0 and initially presented through frequency distributions. Bivariate associations were examined with chi-square analysis for categorical variables. Results Demographics Respondents (the 43 directors/designees and 15 oncology providers) were predominantly male (65%) and had served in their Cancer meanwhile Center for more than ten years (43%). Almost a third (31%) of respondents indicated their primary Cancer Center role to be director, with an additional 17% indicating other significant administrative roles (e.g., medical director, research program director, tobacco treatment program director). Twenty-six percent reported their primary role as physicians, 17% as researchers, and 5% as TUT clinicians.

Attitudes and Knowledge About TUT Services Virtually all (97%) respondents indicated they felt that providing TUT services to cancer patients was important or very important. Eighty-eight percent thought that they were very or highly aware of their Cancer Center policies and services related to tobacco use, and 59% reported that they were personally ��very�� or ��highly�� involved in ensuring these tobacco treatment services and policies were in place. Only 48% of respondents indicated that they had substantive knowledge about the U.S. Health and Human Services clinical practice guidelines related to TUT. TUT Programs When asked if their Cancer Center had a TUT program for patients, 34 (58.6%) responded yes. Of the remaining Centers, 12 (20.7%) reported a TUT program within the health care system or affiliated university to which patients could be referred, and 12 (20.

7%) reported no program or being unsure about affiliated TUT programs. Respondents stated that their Cancer Center�Cbased TUT programs were administratively housed in a variety of clinics and departments, the most common being patient support services (24%), free standing tobacco research programs (15%), and prevention and control research programs (15%). Other bases for housing TUT services included clinics within psychiatry, family medicine, pulmonary medicine, and multidisciplinary clinics. Most respondents for the 34 Cancer Centers that offered TUT programs reported that internal funding sources supported their programs. The second most often cited source of support was through federal grants (50%). Eighty-five percent of TUT programs reported multiple sources of funding. Of the 24 programs reporting no cancer center TUT program, seven (29%) reported that their cancer center would likely or very likely institute a TUT program within the next year. Current Cancer Center Policy and Practice Figure 1 displays the percentage of respondents reporting Drug_discovery specific system policies and programs that support TUT.