<i>On the Front Line of Smoking Cessation:</i> Pharmacists' Practices and Self-Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pharmacists can be effective in helping patients to quit smoking, and opportunities for such interaction have been facilitated by legislative change making nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) available without prescription in Canada. However, there are no previous studies of Canadian pharmacists' preparation for, perception of, or practices regarding their roles in smoking cessation. Methods: Practising community pharmacists in four Canadian provinces were surveyed about their tobacco-related education and knowledge, practice environment, perceptions of their roles and practices related to helping people quit smoking, and factors perceived to facilitate tobacco-related practice. Results: A corrected response rate of 72% was obtained, giving a weighted n of 960 responses. Most pharmacists reported good or excellent knowledge of the health effects of smoking and the use of NRT in smoking cessation. Fewer reported being knowledgeable about behavioural approaches to quitting smoking. Advising patients about NRT was seen as a more important role for pharmacists than giving patients pamphlets or behavioural counselling. Pharmacists' reported practices corresponded to their knowledge and judged importance of roles; pharmacists were not proactive in approaching patients about smoking, but when smokers were identified, pharmacists gave brief advice about the use of NRT. Respondents reported that their smoking cessation practice was facilitated by their own knowledge and skills, patients' interest in quitting, opportunities for patient interaction, and the support of pharmacy management for patient counselling. Conclusions: Improving pharmacist education in patient counselling and behavioural approaches to smoking cessation would help to develop skills in initiating discussions about smoking and would give pharmacists a wider range of options to help patients quit smoking.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".