A pilot randomized trial of a smoking cessation nursing intervention in cardiac patients after hospital discharge.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One fifth of Canadians are smokers despite the availability of community-based smoking cessation programs. It was hypothesized that offering a post-discharge smoking cessation program to cardiac patients would decrease smoking rates at six months. METHOD: This pilot randomized study explored the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of a smoking cessation intervention delivered by a smoking cessation nurse specialist (SCNS) to cardiac patients after hospital discharge. SAMPLE: Participants (N=40) were randomized to either a postdischarge telephone intervention delivered weekly for the first month and then monthly until the third month (experimental group [EG]), or referral to usual community care (control group [CG]). FINDINGS: The researchers confirmed the feasibility of recruitment and acceptability of the intervention, but dfficulty with follow-up. The intention-to-treat analysis showed similar smoking cessation rates in both groups at six months (25% EG versus 30% CG; p = 0.72). CONCLUSION: An intensifed follow-up protocol, or a more intensive, comprehensive and multidisciplinary intervention might be required, given the characteristics of the smokers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".