Smoking-Related Stigma Expressed by Physiotherapists toward Individuals with Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We determined the extent and nature of stigma exhibited by a sample of Canadian cardiorespiratory physiotherapists toward people with lung disease who had a smoking history. Method: A quantitative online survey was distributed to Canadian cardiorespiratory physiotherapists, and an anti-smoking attitudes questionnaire was used to measure explicit stigma. We used two case studies with questions to measure implicit stigma. The first involved a patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a smoking history, and the second described a patient with COPD with no smoking history. Results: Of the respondents (n=50), 56% demonstrated mild explicit stigma and 44% demonstrated moderate to severe explicit stigma. The extent of explicit stigma was not associated with respondents' age, area of practice, personal smoking history, or family history of lung disease resulting from smoking. The results indicated no evidence of implicit stigma, and no significant differences were found between the participants' prospective treatments and their professional attitudes toward patient cases. Conclusions: Canadian cardiorespiratory physiotherapists demonstrated explicit stigma toward people with lung disease with a significant smoking history, but there was no evidence of implicit stigma. These findings suggest that further research is needed to investigate how stigma held by cardiorespiratory physiotherapists may affect the quality of care provided for patients with a smoking history.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".