Continued Family Smoking After Lung Cancer Diagnosis: The Patient's Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To explore the influence of lung cancer diagnosis on interpersonal dynamics in families in which one or more members continue to smoke following diagnosis. RESEARCH APPROACH: Descriptive, qualitative. SETTING: Three cancer care sites in western Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 16 participants from 8 family dyads. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Patients with lung cancer receiving treatment and immediate family members were recruited to participate in individual or conjoint semistructured interviews. Thematic analysis was conducted on transcribed interviews. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Intrafamily interaction patterns, smoking and smoking cessation, lung cancer diagnosis. FINDINGS: Following diagnosis, patients with lung cancer experienced considerable distress as they struggled to understand family members' continued smoking. Patient orientations to family members who smoked included preserving relationships (maintaining harmony and connection with family members took priority over directly intervening with smokers) and risking relationships (patients repeatedly confronted family members about continued smoking to influence their cessation despite the impact on relationships). Neither pattern was successful in engaging relatives in smoking reduction or cessation, and the risking relationships approach resulted in conflict and strained family relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide additional support for examining family dynamics related to tobacco reduction and cessation as well as directions for future research. INTERPRETATION: Nurses should encourage tobacco reduction as a supportive intervention for patients with lung cancer and their families to eliminate smoking-related distress.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".