Exercise Counseling to Enhance Smoking Cessation Outcomes: The Fit2Quit Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular exercise has been proposed as a potential smoking cessation aid. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effects of an exercise counseling program on cigarette smoking abstinence at 24 weeks. METHODS: A parallel, two-arm, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Adult cigarette smokers (n = 906) who were insufficiently active and interested in quitting were randomized to receive the Fit2Quit intervention (10 exercise telephone counseling sessions over 6 months) plus usual care (behavioral counseling and nicotine replacement therapy) or usual care alone. RESULTS: There were no significant group differences in 7-day point-prevalence and continuous abstinence at 6 months. The more intervention calls successfully delivered, the lower the probability of smoking (OR, 0.88; 95 % CI 0.81-0.97, p = 0.01) in the intervention group. A significant difference was observed for leisure time physical activity (difference = 219.11 MET-minutes/week; 95 % CI 52.65-385.58; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone-delivered exercise counseling may not be sufficient to improve smoking abstinence rates over and above existing smoking cessation services. (Australasian Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12609000637246.).
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".