MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181549271 · doi:10.4278/0890-1171-20.2.127

Is Stress Management Training a Useful Addition to Physician Advice and Nicotine Replacement Therapy during Smoking Cessation in Women? Results of a Randomized Trial

2005· article· en· W2181549271 on OpenAlex
Monika E. Slovinec D’Angelo, Robert D. Reid, Stephen B. Hotz, Jane Irvine, Roanne Segal, Chris M. Blanchard, Andrew Pipe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Health Promotion · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSmoking cessationNicotine replacement therapyAbstinenceRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalOdds ratioNicotine patchPhysical therapyStress managementInternal medicinePsychiatryPlaceboClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine whether a stress management (SM) program could improve cessation rates when added to usual care (UC) among women attempting to quit smoking. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted during a 12-month period. SETTING: Smoking cessation clinics located within two tertiary care centers in Ottawa, Ontario. SUBJECTS: A total of 332 women smokers 19 years or older who smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day were recruited via advertisements. INTERVENTION. Either UC (physician advice and nicotine replacement therapy) or UC plus an eight-session group SM training program (coping skills development relevant to smoking-specific and generic stressors). MEASURES: Point prevalence abstinence 2 and 12 months after study intake. A secondary outcome of interest was change in perceived stress during the intervention period. RESULTS: On an intent-to-treat basis, the addition of SM to UC had no incremental effect on 2- or 12-month abstinence rates. Abstinence rates at 2 months were 26.2% vs. 31.7% in the UC and SM groups, respectively (p = .59). At 12 months, the rates were 18.5% vs. 20.7% (p = .86). When quit rates were compared including only participants who demonstrated adequate adherence to the intervention protocol, there was a significant difference between the UC and SM groups at 2 months (34.9% vs. 48.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.42; p = .04) but not at 12 months (23.0% vs. 28.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, .64-2.41; p = .53). There was a significant reduction in perceived stress from preintervention to postintervention; however, this decrease was not moderated by group assignment. CONCLUSION: The addition of SM in our setting neither increased abstinence rates nor reduced perceived stress over and above UC in women motivated to quit smoking. Poor attendance at the SM intervention undermined its effectiveness.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.309 · 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