Planned quit attempts among Ontario smokers: impact on abstinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine the use and role of planned quit attempts by smokers and their impact on abstinence. DESIGN: Retrospective, using longitudinal data from the Ontario Tobacco Survey. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 551 adult smokers who reported having made a quit attempt during 2007-08. MEASUREMENTS: Reported planning of the most recent quit attempt (i.e. unplanned or planned some time in advance), engaging in preparatory behaviours believed to be related to planning (i.e. use of quit aids such as pharmacotherapy, formal support or health professionals) and abstinence at 1 week and 1 month following the attempt. FINDINGS: Of the smokers, 73.6% planned their quit attempt in advance. Reported planning was more likely among those who thought they were very addicted, compared with those who were less addicted [odds ratio (OR)=2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-4.28]. Smokers who planned a quit attempt were much more likely to use a quit aid (OR=3.50, 95% CI: 1.80-6.79), particularly pharmacotherapy (OR=6.13, 95% CI: 3.05-12.34). The odds of abstaining for 1 week were lower among those who planned (OR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.89), independent of perceived addiction. No significant difference was observed for abstinence lasting 1 month. Other factors associated with abstinence were smoking fewer cigarettes per day and having personal support. CONCLUSIONS: Although most quit attempts were planned and planners had higher odds of using quit aids, planning did not increase the likelihood of success.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".