The Development of the Tobacco Tactics Website
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Web-based cessation interventions have been shown to reduce tobacco use, be more efficacious than self-help booklets, be more efficacious if they provide tailored messages, and enhance quit rates in conjunction with nicotine replacement therapy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to usability test and pilot test the Tobacco Tactics website for veterans. METHODS: Both formative and summative evaluations were used across three small successive studies to develop and test the Tobacco Tactics website for veterans, which was based on a prior face-to-face smoking cessation intervention. Once the website was developed, the research team and Web developers usability tested the website with 5 veteran smokers and former smokers. Feedback from the veterans was collected as they navigated each webpage, then used to revise the website. In pilot study 1, 9 veteran smokers were provided access to the website, and given a baseline and 30-day follow-up survey. In pilot study 2, 18 veteran smokers, who were also motivated to quit smoking, were recruited and randomized to either the Tobacco Tactics website plus nicotine replacement therapy or to the 1-800-QUIT-NOW telephone line. RESULTS: As a result of usability testing, more than 27 modifications were made to improve the website. In pilot study 1, 50% (3/6) veterans who entered the website had cut down on the number of cigarettes and 83% (5/6) found the website enjoyable, easy to read, easy to navigate, and would recommend the website to others. In pilot study 2, which included only smokers motivated to quit and also offered nicotine replacement therapy, seven-day point prevalence abstinence at 30-day follow-up was 40% (4/10) in the intervention group compared to 13% (1/8) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results are promising and suggest the need for wider-scale testing of the Tobacco Tactics website for veterans.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".