Does Duration of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Use Matter in Quitting Smoking? A Longitudinal Study of Smokers in the General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Little is known about the impact of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use duration on smoking cessation in the general population. This study determines whether duration of NRT use is associated with smoking cessation. \nMethods: Data were from the Ontario Tobacco Survey longitudinal study of a population-based cohort of baseline smokers who made serious quit attempts during 18 months of follow-up. The association between NRT (any NRT, patches, or gum) use duration and smoking cessation outcomes (short-term abstinence ≥1 month and long-term abstinence ≥12 months) was estimated by Poisson regression, adjusting for all confounding variables. \nResults: Among the 1,590 eligible smokers, 933 (59%) did not use any NRT, 535 (34%) used NRT <8 weeks, and 112 (8%) used NRT ≥8 weeks at follow-up. The median duration of NRT use was 14 days. A consistent “J” shape of associations between quit aid use duration and smoking cessation outcomes (quit rates) was found. Using any NRT, patches, or gum <8 weeks was generally associated with a lower likelihood of quitting, but using them ≥8 weeks was generally associated with a higher likelihood of quitting, compared to not using them. Only using patches for the recommended duration (≥8 weeks) was associated with a higher likelihood of short-term (relative risk, RR 1.74, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.21-2.50) and long-term (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.25-5.50) abstinence at the end of 18 months of follow-up, compared to not using patches. Using gum ≥8 weeks was not associated with short- or long-term abstinence at the end of 18 months of follow-up.\nConclusions: Using nicotine patches for the recommended duration is associated with successful short- and long-term abstinence in the general population. More efforts are needed to encourage smokers to use nicotine patches for eight or more weeks when attempting to quit.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".