Stepped Care Approach to Smoking Cessation in Patients Hospitalized for Coronary Artery Disease
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
PURPOSE: Smoking cessation is an important goal for smokers with coronary artery disease (CAD) because it reduces cardiac morbidity and mortality. Effective interventions for cigarette smokers with CAD exist, but they often are considered to be intensive and expensive. Stepped-care interventions have been proposed as a promising way to allocate smoking cessation treatments in a cost-effective manner. Stepped care refers to the practice of initiating treatment with low-intensity intervention and then exposing treatment failures to successively more intense interventions. METHODS: To address the efficacy of this approach, 254 cigarette smokers hospitalized with CAD were provided a brief cessation intervention. The participants then were assigned randomly to either a more intensive stepped-care treatment (counseling and nicotine patch therapy) or no additional treatment. Outcomes were point-prevalent abstinence measured 3 months and 1 year after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Stepped-care treatment increased smoking cessation rates from 42% to 53% during a 3-month follow-up period (P =.05), but showed little effect at the 1-year follow-up assessment, as evidenced by a cessation rate for the minimal intervention group of 36% versus 39% for the stepped-care group (P =.36). CONCLUSIONS: A stepped-care approach to smoking cessation increased short-but not long-term point-prevalent abstinence in patients with CAD. For improvement of long-term effectiveness, refinement of the timing and content of stepped-care interventions needs to occur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it