The TOBg Tobacco Treatment Guidelines for Adolescents: A real-world pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted a pilot study to: 1) obtain feedback from prevention practitioners in terms of their satisfaction, knowledge, and self-efficacy following exposure to the Tobacco Treatment Guidelines for Adolescents (TOBg Guidelines); and 2) examine the effectiveness of a school-based intervention based on the TOBg Guidelines on quit rates among a sample of adolescent tobacco users. METHODS: Two parallel studies were conducted. In Study 1, prevention practitioners were exposed to a 1-day training in the TOBg Guidelines with assessment occurring before, immediately after, and at 6 months following the training. In Study 2, participating adolescent smokers were exposed to a 3-session group-based smoking cessation intervention that drew on the TOBg Guidelines and was delivered by practitioners trained in Study 1. The primary outcome measure was self-reported smoking status assessed at 1 month and at 6 months following baseline. RESULTS: A total of 18 prevention practitioners and 65 adolescent tobacco users participated in the pilot study. The majority of practitioners reported high rates of satisfaction with the TOBg Guidelines and indicated that the guidelines positively influenced the manner in which they addressed tobacco use with adolescents. Prevention practitioners' self-efficacy for intervening with adolescent smokers was also significantly increased following exposure to the TOBg Guidelines and training. Among adolescents exposed to the school-based intervention, 62.5% and 23.1% had reduced smoking by 50% or more at 1 month and at 6 months follow-up, respectively. No significant change in smoking abstinence was documented. CONCLUSIONS: The TOBg Guidelines for adolescent smokers were well received by prevention practitioners and were feasible to implement in a real-world school setting.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".