Tobacco use cessation interventions for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth and young adults: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smoking prevalence among LGBTQ + youth and young adults is alarmingly high compared to their non-LGBTQ + peers. The purpose of the scoping review was to assess the current state of smoking prevention and cessation intervention research for LGBTQ + youth and young adults, identify and describe these interventions and their effectiveness, and identify gaps in both practice and research. A search for published literature was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and LGBT Life, as well as an in-depth search of the grey literature. All English articles published or written between January 2000 and February 2016 were extracted. The search identified 24 records, of which 21 were included; 11 from peer reviewed sources and 10 from the grey literature. Of these 21, only one study targeted young adults and only one study had smoking prevention as an objective. Records were extracted into evidence tables using a modified PICO framework and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The evidence to date is drawn from methodologically weak studies; however, group cessation counselling demonstrates high quit rates and community-based programs have been implemented, although very little evidence of outcomes exist. Better-controlled research studies are needed and limited evidence exists to guide implementation of interventions for LGBTQ + youth and young adults. This scoping review identified a large research gap in the area of prevention and cessation interventions for LGBTQ youth and young adults. There is a need for effective, community-informed, and engaged interventions specific to LGBTQ + youth and young adults for the prevention and cessation of tobacco.
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 | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".