Gender Differences in Smoking Behaviour and Cessation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article reviews the literature to compare differential outcomes among men and women after smoking cessation, assess barriers they may face during cessation and provide recommendation to address gender-specific challenges in smoking cessation interventions. There is some evidence that women achieve lower abstinence rates than men after a quit attempt with nicotine replacement therapy, as well as without pharmacotherapy, and several underlying mechanisms were discussed to account for these findings. These include: (a) women have specific genetic variants that affect pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the medication, (b) hormonal influences increase nicotine metabolism and withdrawal symptoms, (c) women are more responsive to nonpharmacological aspects of smoking than men, (d) women are more vulnerable to depression and negative mood than men, (e) weight concerns are greater barriers for women than for men and (g) women receive less effective social support than men during a quit attempt. Gender-specific counselling that accounts for these factors and addresses the different needs of men and women may be a promising approach to improve long-term abstinence rates. However, more research is required to identify gender-related underlying mechanisms of differential smoking cessation outcomes, develop tailored interventions that account for gender differences and study the implementation and outcomes of gender-responsive treatment approaches.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".