Does Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy While Continuing to Smoke Undermine Cessation?: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To review population surveys to assess (a) prevalence of the use of NRT for smoking reduction (SR) and temporary abstinence (TA) and (b) how far this is associated with attempts to stop smoking, smoking cessation and reduction in cigarette consumption. Methods: An electronic search was undertaken of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Articles were selected if they (1) assessed whether smokers had used or were currently using NRT for SR and/or TA; (2) involved smokers who had not taken part in a harm reduction programme; and (3) assessed prevalence and/or association of SR and/or TA with reductions in cigarette consumption and/or attempts to stop smoking and/or with smoking cessation. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and results were extracted independently by two researchers. Results: Data were available from five countries (US, UK, Canada, Switzerland and Australia). Between 1% and 23% of smokers reported having ever used NRT for smoking reduction and between 2% and 14% during periods of temporary abstinence. Use of NRT for SR and/or TA was associated with little or no reduction in cigarette consumption. There was some evidence that it was positively associated with attempts to stop smoking and smoking cessation. Conclusion: In smoking populations use of NRT to aid SR and in situations where smoking is not permitted appears to be having little effect on achieving a reduction in cigarette consumption but does not undermine cessation and may promote it.
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 | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".