Smoking cessation interventions from health care providers before and after the national smoke-free law in France
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation advice from health care providers (HCP) is well-known to be associated with increased quitting. This study sought to understand the extent to which smokers in France who visited a HCP around the time of the implementation of the national ban on smoking received encouragement to quit from a HCP and what kinds of intervention were provided. HCP may have a unique opportunity during the implementation phase of smoke-free laws to address their patients' smoking behaviours to increase the likelihood of success at a time when smokers' readiness and interest in quitting may be higher. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted among adult smokers (n = 1067) before and after the two-phase (2007 and 2008) national ban on indoor smoking as part of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) France Survey. In the survey, smokers were asked whether they had visited a HCP in the past 6 months and, if so, whether they had received cessation encouragement, and/or other interventions to support quitting such as prescriptions for stop-smoking medication. RESULTS: Most smokers (61%) reported visiting a HCP in the 6 months prior to the first phase of the national smoke-free ban, and 58% after the time of the hospitality ban. Of these, most reported they did not receive any assistance from a HCP before (54%) or after (64%) the smoke-free law. Among those who reported an intervention, the most common were only encouragement to quit (58% in Wave 1 and 49% in Wave 2), or receiving both encouragement and a pamphlet (31% in both Wave 1 and 2). The combination of prescriptions for stop-smoking medicine and encouragement to quit increased from 8% in 2007 to 22% in 2008. The smokers who received an intervention were more likely (OR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2-2.9) to report that they were thinking about quitting. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that HCP in France are well positioned to provide smoking cessation encouragement and other interventions to a majority of smokers and thus the importance of taking measures to increase their involvement, particularly when population-level tobacco control policies, such as smoke-free laws, are being implemented.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».