Experience of Black participants in the Lung Health Study smoking cessation intervention program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the hypothesis that Black smokers will respond differently than Whites to a smoking cessation intervention program where no adjustments are made in recognition of cultural differences. The responses of Black smokers who were recruited into the Lung Health Study (LHS) to the smoking cessation intervention are described. Black quit rates are compared with those of Whites. The LHS enrolled 5887 men and women smokers, aged 35-60 years, of whom 3923 were randomized to a group cessation intervention and 1964 to usual care. Blacks and Whites from six clinics who had complete covariate data (200 Blacks and 2868 Whites) were compared on baseline smoking characteristics and subsequent smoking cessation outcomes. Logistic models were constructed to adjust for baseline smoking variables and demographic characteristics to evaluate the effect of treatment group on smoking cessation among Blacks and Whites. At baseline, Blacks reported smoking fewer cigarettes than Whites, but had higher mean levels of salivary cotinine. The adjusted odds ratio of quitting at 1 year for the smoking intervention group vs. the usual care group was 1.48 for Blacks and 5.99 for Whites. This difference between Blacks and Whites was highly significant (p = 0.002). Across 5 years, the adjusted odds ratios of quitting were 1.87 for Blacks and 3.34 for Whites (p = 0.06). Although the treatment effect was stronger for Whites than for Blacks, over the 5 years of the study there was a significant treatment effect for Blacks. Indicators of physical dependence on nicotine at baseline were inconsistent in indicating whether Blacks were more dependent. We conclude that Blacks and Whites differed significantly in their response to the LHS group smoking intervention program.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".