MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516502623 · doi:10.4081/jphia.2015.523

Healthcare providers’ level of involvement in provision of smoking cessation interventions in public health facilities in Kenya

2015· article· en· W2516502623 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Judy Gichuki, Rose Okoyo Opiyo, Possy Mugyenyi, Kellen Namusisi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health in Africa · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsPsychological interventionSmoking cessationHealth carePublic healthEnvironmental healthMedicineBusinessNursingEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare providers can play a major role in tobacco control by providing smoking cessation interventions to smoking patients. The objective of this study was to establish healthcare providers' practices regarding smoking cessation interventions in selected health facilities in Kiambu County, Kenya. This was a descriptive cross-sectional study carried out among healthcare providers working in public health facilities in Kiambu County, Kenya. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 400 healthcare providers selected using a two-stage stratified sampling technique. Only 35% of the healthcare providers surveyed reported that they always asked patients about their smoking status. Less than half (44%) reported that they always advised smoking patients to quit. Respondents who had received training on smoking cessation interventions were 3.7 times more likely to have higher practice scores than those without training (OR = 3.66; 95%CI: 1.63-8.26; P = 0.003). Majority of the healthcare providers do not routinely provide smoking cessation interventions to their patients. Measures are needed to increase health worker's involvement in provision of smoking cessation care in Kenya.

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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.540
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.111 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health in AfricaSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207