MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention for hospitalized patients

2006· article· en· W2088534958 on OpenAlexaff
Raphaël Bize, Rebecca Stoianov, Christiane Ruffieux, William A. Ghali, Fred Paccaud, Jacques Cornuz

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cancer Prevention · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSmoking cessationIntervention (counseling)Intensity (physics)Internal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Debate exists about how intense smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients should be. In this study we assessed the effectiveness of a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention for hospitalized patients, without follow-up phone calls. We designed a cohort study with a historical control group, in the Department of Medicine of an 850-bed teaching hospital. One hundred and seventeen consecutive eligible smokers received the intervention, and 113 smokers hospitalized before the implementation of the intervention constituted the historical control group. The 30-min smoking cessation intervention was performed by a trained resident without any follow-up contact. Counseling was matched to smokers' motivation to quit, and accompanied by a self-help booklet. Nicotine replacement therapy was prescribed when indicated. All patients received a questionnaire to evaluate their smoking habits 6 months after they left hospital. We counted patients lost to follow-up as continuous smokers and smoking abstinence was validated by patients' physicians. Validated smoking cessation rates were 23.9% in the intervention group and 9.7% in the control group (odds ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-6.2). After adjusting for potential confounders, intervention was still effective with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.04-4.95). Among those who continued to smoke 6 months after hospitalization, the likelihood of reporting any decrease of cigarette consumption was higher in the intervention cohort (70.8 vs. 42.7%, P=0.001). A low-intensity smoking cessation intervention, based on two visits without any follow-up contact, is associated with a higher quit rate at 6 months than that for historical control patients. Our findings show that a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention, based on two visits without any follow-up contact, is associated with a higher quit rate at 6 months than that for historical control patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cancer PreventionSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207