Promoting a smokers' quitline in Ontario, Canada: an evaluation of an academic detailing approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assesses the impact of an academic detailing quitline promotional outreach program on integration of patient referrals to the quitline by fax in healthcare settings and quitline utilization in Ontario, Canada. The study employed a mixed methods approach for evaluation, with trend analysis of quitline administrative data from the year before program inception (2005) to 2011 and qualitative interviews with quitline stakeholders. Participants in the qualitative interviews included academic detailing program staff, regional tobacco control stakeholders and quitline promotion experts. Quantitative outcomes included the number of fax referral partners and fax referrals received, and quitline reach. Trends in proximal and distal outreach program outcomes were assessed. The qualitative data were analysed through a process of data coding involving the constant comparative technique derived from grounded theory methods. The study identified that the outreach program has had some success in integrating the fax referral program in healthcare settings through evidence of increased fax referrals since program inception. However, organizational barriers to program partner engagement have been encountered. While referral from health professionals through the fax referral programs has increased since the inception of the outreach program, the overall reach of the quitline has not increased. The study findings highlight that an academic detailing approach to quitline promotion can have some success in achieving increased fax referral program integration in healthcare settings. However, findings suggest that investment in a comprehensive promotional strategy, incorporating academic detailing, media and the provision of free cessation medications may be a more effective approach to quitline promotion.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".