LGBTQ Youth and Young Adult Perspectives on a Culturally Tailored Group Smoking Cessation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of smoking among LGBTQ youth and young adults (YYAs) is much higher than that of non-LGBTQ young people. The current study explored LGBTQ YYA perceptions of a culturally tailored group smoking cessation counselling program, along with how the intervention could be improved. METHODS: We conducted focus groups (n = 24) with 204 LGBTQ YYAs in Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. Open-ended questions focused on their feelings, likes and dislikes, concerns and additional ideas for a culturally tailored group cessation counselling intervention. Focus group transcripts were coded thematically and analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, YYAs were ambivalent towards the concept of a culturally tailored, group cessation counselling program. Although several participants were attracted to the LGBTQ friendly and social benefits of such a program (eg, good support system), many also had concerns. Particularly, the possibility that other group members might trigger them to smoke was a frequently stated issue. Focus group members also noted lack of motivation to attend the group, and that the group program may be inaccessible depending on where and when the program was offered. Several suggestions were made as to how to ameliorate the expressed issues related to inaccessibility or lack of attractiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to gain the perspectives of LGBTQ YYAs on culturally tailored group cessation strategies in Canada. We identified components of group cessation programs that are both favored and not favored among LGBTQ YYAs, as well as suggestions as to how to make group cessation programs more appealing. IMPLICATIONS: This study is particularly relevant as smoking cessation programs are one of the most commonly offered and published cessation interventions for the LGBTQ community, yet little is understood in terms of preferences of LGBTQ YYA smokers. Given the disparity in the prevalence of smoking among LGBTQ young people compared to their non-LGBTQ peers, research on effective intervention strategies for this population is needed. Findings from this study can assist practitioners and researchers in designing interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".