A Motivational, Gender-Sensitive Smoking Cessation Resource for Family Members of Patients With Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To gather feedback on an innovative gender-sensitive booklet that draws on emotional connections and relationship factors to motivate smoking cessation. RESEARCH APPROACH: Qualitative, descriptive. SETTING: Six provinces in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 30 family members of patients with lung cancer who were currently smoking or had recently quit. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Parallel booklets for women and men were developed using language and images to emphasize family relationships and gender considerations to motivate smoking cessation. Participants were provided with the women's and men's versions of the resource, and they were asked to review the gender-specific version of the booklet that was relevant to them. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted, and transcriptions were analyzed for themes. FINDINGS: Three themes were evident in the data, including "new perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: A gender-sensitive approach that focuses on relationship factors represents an acceptable way to engage relatives of patients with lung cancer in discussions to support smoking cessation. INTERPRETATION: Approaches to supporting smoking cessation among relatives of patients diagnosed with lung cancer should draw on positive relationship bonds and caring connections to motivate cessation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".