Abuse and smoking cessation in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This discursive paper explores issues of abuse during smoking cessation counselling. BACKGROUND: During a training session for a smoking cessation intervention pilot study, nurses expressed concerns about issues of abuse that had previously surfaced during cessation counselling in their practice. Abused women are more likely to smoke. As guidelines recommend integrating cessation interventions into practice, issues of abuse are likely to surface. METHODS: A literature review and synthesis of abuse and smoking cessation was undertaken to arrive at recommendations for practice. RESULTS: There are a few suggestions about how to manage abuse within cessation counselling, but none have been studied: (1) integrate stress-management strategies, (2) assess for abuse, (3) provide separate interventions for partners to create a safe environment, and (4) develop interventions that consider the relationship couples have with tobacco. However, coping strategies alone do not address abuse, screening without treatment is not helpful, and partner interventions assume both partners are open to quitting/counselling. In contrast, as with all clinical practice, abuse and cessation would be considered separate but intertwined problems, and following best practice guidelines for abuse would provide the guidance on how to proceed. After care has been taken to address abuse, it is the patient's decision whether to continue with cessation counselling. CONCLUSION: Guidelines addresses both care planning and the ethical/legal issues associated with the disclosure of abuse and provide a practical tool for addressing abuse that obviates the need to tailor cessation interventions to abuse. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This paper clarifies a relationship between smoking and abuse and the subsequent implications for smoking cessation interventions and highlights the importance of addressing abuse and smoking cessation separately, even though they are interrelated problems. It provides nurses with appropriate initial responses when abuse is disclosed during an unexpected encounter such as during a smoking cessation intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".