MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731564386 · doi:10.3747/co.23.3506

Lessons Learned Implementing a Province-Wide Smoking Cessation Initiative in Ontario’s Cancer Centres

2017· article· en· W2731564386 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
William K. Evans, Rebecca Truscott, Erin Cameron, A. Peter, Robert D. Reid, Peter Selby, Patricia M. Smith, Amanda Hey

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsNortheast Cancer CentreHealth Sciences NorthNOSM UniversityUniversity of OttawaCancer Care OntarioMcMaster UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSmoking cessationCancerFamily medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: A large body of evidence clearly shows that cancer patients experience significant health benefits with smoking cessation. Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial agency responsible for the quality of cancer services in Ontario, has undertaken a province-wide smoking cessation initiative. The strategies used, the results achieved, and the lessons learned are the subject of the present article. METHODS: Evidence related to the health benefits of smoking cessation in cancer patients was reviewed. A steering committee developed a vision statement for the initiative, created a framework for implementation, and made recommendations for the key elements of the initiative and for smoking cessation best practices. RESULTS: New ambulatory cancer patients are being screened for their smoking status in each of Ontario's 14 regional cancer centres. Current or recent smokers are advised of the benefits of cessation and are directed to smoking cessation resources as appropriate. Performance metrics are captured and used to drive improvement through quarterly performance reviews and provincial rankings of the regional cancer centres. CONCLUSIONS: Regional smoking cessation champions, commitment from Cancer Care Ontario senior leadership, a provincial secretariat, and guidance from smoking cessation experts have been important enablers of early success. Data capture has been difficult because of the variety of information systems in use and non-standardized administrative and clinical processes. Numerous challenges remain, including increasing physician engagement; obtaining funding for key program elements, including in-house resources to support smoking cessation; and overcoming financial barriers to access nicotine replacement therapy. Future efforts will focus on standardizing processes to the extent possible, while tailoring the approaches to the populations served and the resources available within the individual regional cancer programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.338
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207