Credibility Beliefs towards Nicotine Replacement Therapy and Exercise as Smoking Cessation Aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the current study was to examine smokers’ beliefs towards the credibility of exercise andNicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) as cessation aids while partaking in a quit-smoking program. Method: Asubsample (n = 149) of female smokers underwent a 14-week cessation program involving exercise and NRT.Credibility beliefs were collected at baseline (before quitting), week 5 (one week after quitting), and week 14(end of program). Smoking status was assessed at week 14 by breath expired into a carbon monoxide (CO)reader. Participants who demonstrated a CO score of < 6 ppm were considered “quitters” and those who hadlevels of ? 6 ppm or failed to attend the assessment were considered “smokers”. Results: Quitters’ exercise andNRT credibility beliefs significantly increased over time; however, no treatment by time interaction effect wasfound. No significant differences were found between smokers’ and quitters’ exercise and NRT credibilitybeliefs assessed at baseline. A significant difference was found between smokers’ and quitters’ week 5 exercisecredibility scores, but not for week 5 NRT. Conclusions: For clinicians prescribing exercise as a smokingcessation aid, it is recommended that their patients’ treatment credibility beliefs be assessed and reinforced,particularly during their first week of quitting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".