Pharmacists' Smoking Cessation Counseling Practices: A Comparison Between 2005 and 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To determine if smoking cessation counseling practices and related psychosocial characteristics improved among pharmacists between 2005 and 2010. METHODS: Data were collected in 2005 and 2010 from randomly selected pharmacists in Québec, Canada. Participants completed mailed self-report questionnaires on cessation counseling practices and psychosocial characteristics (i.e., belief that counseling is the role of pharmacists, self-efficacy, barriers, and knowledge of community resources). The association between each of year and training (either during or after undergraduate studies) and each outcome was investigated in each sex separately with multiple linear regression models using pooled data across 2005 and 2010. RESULTS: Among female pharmacists, cessation counseling for patients ready to quit improved over time. Training during and after undergraduate studies was significantly associated with higher self-efficacy, better knowledge of community resources, and improved counseling for patients ready and not ready to quit. Also, training after studies was significantly associated with more advantageous beliefs about counseling. Among male pharmacists, knowledge of community resources and perceived barriers to counseling improved over time, but there were no significant differences in cessation counseling. Training during and after undergraduate studies was significantly associated with higher self-efficacy. Training during undergraduate studies was also associated with higher counseling score in patients ready to quit, and training after studies was associated with better knowledge of community resources. CONCLUSION: Smoking cessation counseling for patients ready to quit improved from 2005 to 2010 among female pharmacists but not among male pharmacists. Training is generally associated with improved counseling and improved cessation-related psychosocial characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".