Patients resisted attempts to link smoking to their current medical problems in general practice consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pilnick A, Coleman T. “I’ll give up smoking when you get me better”: patients’ resistance to attempts to problematise smoking in general practice (GP) consultations. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:135–45.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In general practice consultations, how do general practitioners (GPs) introduce and advise patients who smoke about quitting? How do patients respond to this advice? Interactional analysis of videotaped patient-GP consultations and semistructured interviews with GPs. General practices in an East Midlands County in the UK. 47 consultations between 47 patients who were self reported regular or occasional smokers {mean age 41 y, 74% women}* and 29 different GPs. 39 GPs were also interviewed. 42 GPs who responded to a postal questionnaire measuring attitudes towards discussing smoking with patients were recruited. Of the 538 video recorded consultations, 47 (between 47 different patients and 29 GPs) that mentioned smoking were chosen for further analysis. In addition, 39 semistructured interviews … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSocial%2Bscience%2B%2526%2Bmedicine%26rft.stitle%253DSoc%2BSci%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DPilnick%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D57%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D135%26rft.epage%253D145%26rft.atitle%253D%2526quot%253BI%2527ll%2Bgive%2Bup%2Bsmoking%2Bwhen%2Byou%2Bget%2Bme%2Bbetter%2526quot%253B%253A%2Bpatients%2527%2Bresistance%2Bto%2Battempts%2Bto%2Bproblematise%2Bsmoking%2Bin%2Bgeneral%2Bpractice%2B%2528GP%2529%2Bconsultations.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0277-9536%252802%252900336-2%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12753822%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00336-2&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12753822&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F2%2F62.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183191700011&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.006 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".