MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178556332

Smoking cessation in Malaysian Pharmacy Curricula: Findings from environmental surveys

2015· article· en· W2178556332 on OpenAlexaff
Saraswathi Simansalam, Joan M. Brewster, Mohamad Haniki Nik Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacy Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacySmoking cessationCurriculumMedicinePharmacy practiceFamily medicineMedical educationPharmacy schoolPsychologyPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Lack of comprehensive training focusing on smoking cessation in the local universities curricula may contribute to suboptimal smoking cessation counselling provision among pharmacists. Aims: The main aim was to identify the gaps in smoking cessation training in pharmacy curricula. The secondary aim was to assess the pharmacy faculty members’ practice and relevant determinants pertaining to smoking cessation counselling. The third aim was to compare the effect of training on these determinants. Method: Key individuals were identified from pharmacy schools to obtain information on tobacco-related teaching. Self-administered questionnaire was distributed to pharmacy faculty members to assess their practice pertaining to smoking cessation counselling. Results: Tobacco-related topics were part of core courses in nine schools with a median teaching duration of 2.75 hours. Practice pertaining to smoking cessation counselling is limited and training has positive effect on practice. Conclusion: A standard curriculum on smoking cessation training is needed to equip the pharmacy undergraduates and faculty members with necessary knowledge and skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacy EducationSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207