Feasibility, acceptability and impact of a telephone support service initiated in primary medical care to help Arabic smokers quit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based tobacco control in ethnic minorities is compromised by the near absence of rigorous testing of interventions in either prevention or cessation. This randomised controlled trial was designed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and impact of a culturally specific cessation intervention delivered in the context of primary medical care in the most culturally diverse region of New South Wales. Adult Arabic smokers were recruited from practices of 29 general practitioners (GPs) in south-west Sydney and randomly allocated to usual care (n=194) or referred to six sessions of smoking cessation telephone support delivered by bilingual psychologists (n=213). Although 62.2% of participants indicated that telephone support would benefit Arabic smokers, there were no significant differences at 6 or 12 months between intervention and control groups in point prevalence abstinence rates (11.7% vs 12.9%, P=0.83; 8.4% vs 11.3%, P=0.68, respectively) or the mean shift in stage-of-change towards intention to quit. As participants and GPs found telephone support acceptable, we also discuss redesign and the unfulfilled obligation to expand the evidence base in tobacco control from which the ethnic majority already benefits.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".