Smoking Cessation and Counseling: Knowledge and Views of Canadian Physical Therapists
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Physical therapists are uniquely positioned in health care to initiate or support smoking cessation (SC). Little is known, however, about their knowledge and views of SC as part of their practices. Objective The purpose of this study was to assess Canadian physical therapists' knowledge about the health effects of smoking, their views about addressing SC in practice, and their self-efficacy in enabling patients to quit smoking. Design This study was a cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Licensed physical therapists in Canada were surveyed with postal methods. RESULTS: A total of 738 survey questionnaires were returned. The mean age and years of clinical experience of the respondents were 41.9 (SD=10.8) years and 17.4 (SD=11.0), respectively. Most respondents (78.6%) were women. Canadian physical therapists are largely informed about the negative effects of smoking on health. Although 76.9% of the physical therapists agreed or strongly agreed that the profession should be more involved in helping people who smoke quit, only 56.8% of the physical therapists agreed or strongly agreed that they should receive training on SC. More than 70% of the physical therapists reported that they were not prepared to provide counseling and, overall, the level of self-efficacy regarding counseling about SC was low. Lack of resources and time were reported to be key barriers to counseling patients to quit smoking. Limitations The findings of this study are limited to Canadian physical therapists. Response bias and social desirability bias also are potential limiters in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of physical therapists expressed the view that advising people who smoke to quit is a clinical responsibility and endorsed greater involvement of the profession in helping people who smoke quit. Discordance existed, however, between these views and the physical therapists' interest in receiving training on counseling about SC. This is a benchmark study that has practical implications for targeting training consistent with the profession's mission to improve health by increasing physical therapists' preparedness and self-efficacy regarding counseling about SC.
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 | 0,000 | 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».