Feasibility, acceptability and impact of a telephone support service initiated in primary medical care to help Arabic smokers quit
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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