Patient-specific academic detailing for smoking cessation: feasibility study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and to determine the feasibility of a patient-specific academic detailing (PAD) smoking cessation (SC) program in a primary care setting. DESIGN: Descriptive cohort feasibility study. SETTING: Hamilton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists, physicians, nurse practitioners, and their patients. INTERVENTIONS: Integrated pharmacists received basic academic detailing training and education on SC and then delivered PAD to prescribers using structured verbal education and written materials. Data were collected using structured forms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five main feasibility criteria were generated based on Canadian academic detailing programs: PAD coordinator time to train pharmacists less than 40 hours; median time of SC education per pharmacist less than 20 hours; median time per PAD session less than 60 minutes for initial visit; percentage of prescribers receiving PAD within 3 months greater than 50%; and number of new SC referrals to pharmacists at 6 months more than 10 patients per 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) pharmacist (total of approximately 30 patients). RESULTS: Eight pharmacists (5.8 FTE) received basic academic detailing training and education on SC PAD. Forty-eight physicians and 9 nurse practitioners consented to participate in the study. The mean PAD coordinator training time was 29.1 hours. The median time for SC education was 3.1 hours. The median times for PAD sessions were 15 and 25 minutes for an initial visit and follow-up visit, respectively. The numbers of prescribers who had received PAD at 3 and 6 months were 50 of 64 (78.1%) and 57 of 64 (89.1%), respectively. The numbers of new SC referrals at 3 and 6 months were 11 patients per FTE pharmacist (total of 66 patients) and 34 patients per FTE pharmacist (total of 200 patients), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study met the predetermined feasibility criteria with respect to the management, resources, process, and scientific components. Further study is warranted to determine whether PAD is more effective than conventional academic detailing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".