Tobacco use and cessation counselling: Global Health Professionals Survey Pilot Study, 10 countries, 2005
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the strategies to reduce the number of smoking-related deaths is to encourage the involvement of health professionals in tobacco-use prevention and cessation counselling. The World Health Organization, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Canadian Public Health Association developed the Global Health Professionals Survey (GHPS) to collect data on tobacco use and cessation counselling among health-profession students in all WHO member states. This report summarises findings from the GHPS Pilot Study, which consisted of 16 surveys conducted in 10 countries among third year students in four health-profession disciplines (dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy) during the first quarter of 2005. The findings indicated that current cigarette smoking among these students was higher than 20% in seven of the 10 countries surveyed. Nevertheless, 87-99% of the students surveyed believed they should have a role in counselling patients to quit smoking; only 5-37% of these third-year students had actually received formal training in how to conduct such counselling. Schools for health professionals, public health organisations, and education officials should work together to design and implement training in smoking cessation counselling for all health-profession students.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it