Smoking cessation counselling practices among Québec optometrists: evaluating beliefs, practices, barriers and needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the fact that cigarette smoking is a well known risk factor for many ocular diseases, very little data exist regarding optometrists' interventions in smoking cessation counselling with their patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the practices, perceptions and educational needs of Québec optometrists regarding smoking cessation counselling. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire pertaining to smoking cessation counselling practices was mailed to 600 optometrists licensed in Québec. RESULTS: The response rate was 51 per cent. The majority (90 per cent) of respondents (n = 288) reported having the required knowledge of ocular diseases related to smoking. Most respondents recognised that optometrists should ask their patients if they smoke (73 per cent), should advise their smoking patients to stop smoking (65 per cent) and should be cognisant of the resources available that can support patients in their efforts to quit smoking (65 per cent). Few responders asked their patients on a regular basis if they indeed smoked (16 per cent) or advised them to stop, if such was the case (29 per cent). Moreover, only eight per cent of respondents knew the resources toward which they should direct their patients who wish to stop smoking. Only eight per cent of respondents perceived themselves as being competent to offer counselling. For 72 per cent of the respondents, the main obstacle to smoking cessation counselling was the lack of knowledge about counselling. Approximately half (48 per cent) of respondents are interested in acquiring competencies in smoking cessation counselling. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the present study, optometrists in Québec are well aware of the effects of smoking on ocular health and the importance of educating their patients; however, they might not possess the required skills to assist their patients in quitting smoking. Because they have not received sufficient training, optometrists in Québec remain an untapped resource in tobacco cessation counselling.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".