Tobacco-Nicotine Education and Training for Health-Care Professional Students and Practitioners: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this systematic review was to investigate what education and training characteristics prepares and supports health-care professionals (HCPs) in the delivery of competent and effective care to clients who use tobacco-nicotine. Aims and Methods: A search of eight bibliographic databases for English-language peer-reviewed publications from January 2006 to March 2015. Studies were included if they met the a priori inclusion criteria, which consisted of: (1) quantitative study design and (2) focus on tobacco-nicotine education or training for HCP students and practitioners. All studies were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data from included studies were extracted for study characteristics and key outcomes then critically appraised for methodological quality. Results: Fifty-nine studies were included for narrative synthesis. Two categories emerged: (1) curriculum characteristics (n = 10) and (2) education and training interventions (n = 49). Included curriculum studies identified the following themes: content, intensity, competencies evaluation, and barriers. Study findings about education and training interventions were grouped by level of education (prelicensure, post-licensure, and faculty training), teaching modality, health discipline, and the associated HCP and client outcomes. Conclusions: This comprehensive review suggests that there is a lack of consistency in HCP tobacco-nicotine education and training characteristics. This paper provides valuable categorization of the most frequently utilized components of academic curriculum and discusses the interventions in relation to HCP and client outcomes. Gaps in the literature are highlighted, and the need for standardization of tobacco-nicotine training competencies and evaluation is discussed. Future research investigating the most effective approaches to training is needed. Implications: This systematic review summarizes existing tobacco-related curriculum components (content, intensity, competency evaluation, and barriers) and training interventions for health-care professionals worldwide and demonstrates that they are associated with positive health-care professional outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and skills) and client outcomes (quit attempts and smoking abstinence).
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".