Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Effectiveness of a Tailored Self-Help Smoking-Cessation Intervention for Postsecondary Smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Between September 2002 and February 2003, the authors assessed the effectiveness of a new, age-tailored, self-help smoking-cessation program for college students. PARTICIPANTS: College student smokers (N = 216) from 6 Ontario universities participated. METHODS: The researchers used a randomized controlled trial with a 3-month telephone follow-up. Interventions included a new program (Smoke|Quit), the Canadian Cancer Society's self-help program, and a usual care quit kit. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis of 7-day point prevalence cessation revealed quit rates of 11.4% for Smoke|Quit, 2.9% for the Cancer Society's program, and 5.6% for the usual care intervention (p < .05). Among nonquitters, 46.5% had made a quit attempt, and weekly consumption decreased from 54.01 to 42.08 cigarettes (p < .001) with no differences across interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Making tailored, self-help programs widely available on campus may be an effective way to provide smoking-cessation support to a large segment of the young adult population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".