Motivational Interviewing and Smoking Behaviors: A Critical Appraisal and Literature Review of Selected Cessation Initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper systematically reviewed and critically appraised three different dimensions of motivational interviewing currently utilized in smoking cessation initiatives: social support, motivation, and tailored interventions. A review of four databases generated 57 primary articles, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria of an intervention study utilizing at least one dimension of motivational interviewing, adults between 18 and 64 years, no comorbidities, and a follow-up period of at least 6 weeks. More than 11,600 participants are represented in this review. The implementation of social support, motivation, and tailored interventions yielded mixed results. Furthermore, threats to validity emerged, including self-report, follow-up period, sample sizes, a priori differences in groups, and web-based and text-based interventions. Further research must ascertain the efficacy of the three dimensions of motivational interviewing indicated by the mixed results reported in terms of statistical significance of cessation rates. More empirically rigorous designs with evaluations based on stringent replicable criteria are needed.
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 | 0.025 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".