Impact of the Tobacco Treatment Guidelines for High RiskGroups (TOB.g): A pilot study among physicians specializing inCVD, Diabetes and COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The 2017 Tobacco Cessation Guidelines for High-risk Groups (TOB-G) is a comprehensive document on best practices for smoking cessation in clinical practice. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess physician satisfaction and changes in tobacco-related knowledge, self-efficacy and attitudes following exposure to training in the TOB-G guidelines for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or diabetes. METHODS: A pre-post pilot study was conducted. All participating physicians received an electronic or printed copy of the TOB-G guidelines for patients with CVD, COPD or diabetes. Physicians were also exposed to a one-day training focused on the key clinical practice recommendations from the TOB.g guidelines. Outcome measurement occurred via survey before, immediately following and 6 months after exposure to the training. RESULTS: Fifty physicians participated in the TOB.g training session. High rates of participant satisfaction were documented (exceeded expectations 47.7%; met expectations to a great extent 52.3%). Significant increases in physician knowledge and self-efficacy were documented immediately following and 6 months after exposure to the guideline training session. Exposure to the training was associated with positive changes in some but not all tobacco-related treatment attitudes, however these were no longer significant at the 6-month follow-up. Lower knowledge, confidence and unfavourable attitudes were documented for aspects of treatment related to pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Positive changes in previously reported barriers to the delivery of tobacco treatment among physicians were documented following exposure to the TOB.g guidelines and training for patients with CVD, COPD or diabetes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".