Woman focused smoking cessation programming: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies of smoking cessation programs in clinical settings have revealed poorer outcomes for women compared to men, including counselling alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy. The objective of the current study was to explore treatment and program structure needs and preferences among female clients in a specialized smoking cessation clinic in an academic mental health and addiction health science centre in order to inform program design so that it meets the needs of female clients. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with current and former female clients (n = 23, mode age range = 50-59 years old, 56.5% were still smoking and 43.5% had quit) who had registered for outpatient smoking cessation treatment. Questions were designed to examine what aspects of the services were helpful and what changes they would like to see to better assist them and other women with quitting smoking. A thematic analysis of the raw data (audio recordings and notes taken during the focus groups) was conducted using a phenomenological theoretical framework. RESULTS: Themes that emerged indicated that females trying to quit smoking are best supported if they have choice from a variety of services so that treatment can be individualized to meet their specific needs; psychosocial support is provided both one-one-one with health care professionals and by peers in support groups; free pharmacotherapy is available to eliminate financial barriers to use; women-specific educational topics and support groups are offered; the clinic is accessible with evening/weekend hours, options to attend a local clinic, and childcare availability; and communication about clinic services and operation are clear, readily available, and regularly updated. CONCLUSIONS: An ideal smoking cessation program for women includes a women's centred approach with sufficient variety and choice, free pharmacotherapy, non-judgmental support, accessible services and clear communication of program options and changes. Findings may suggest an actionable list of adaptations that can be adopted by other clinics providing smoking cessation services to women.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".