MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Results of a pan-Canadian approach to systems change for smoking cessation support in Canadian cancer centers.

2018· article· en· W2889839922 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Hall, Deb Keen, Caitlyn Timmings, Graham Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoking cessationMedicineReferralFamily medicineCancerGeneral partnershipBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18538 Background: Smoking cessation even after a cancer diagnosis can improve survival, but access to smoking cessation support is limited. The purpose of this abstract is to describe results from a systems change approach by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) to promote adoption of evidence-based cessation within provincial and territorial cancer systems across Canada. Methods: Beginning in 2015, an initiative was developed to convene a meeting of all Canadian provinces and territories to apply for 15 months of CPAC funding that could be used to support planning, implementation, and evaluation of smoking cessation services in the ambulatory cancer care setting. CPAC resources were used to support sustainable system change related to smoking cessation, including: executive champions, project leads, monthly teleconference calls, cross-project evaluations, in-person knowledge exchange workshops, and common-core elements for planning, dissemination, and reporting to support adoption and implementation. Results: In 2016, ~$1.0M (USD) was provided to 7 provinces and 2 territories. Funds were used for primary projects related to planning (2 provinces and 2 territories), implementation (3 provinces), and evaluation (2 provinces). After 15-months of funding from CPAC, 6 provinces reported implementation of smoking cessation for ambulatory cancer patients. The remaining province and 2 territories funded by CPAC reported development of plans for adoption of smoking cessation for cancer patients in the future. Within provinces reporting implementation of smoking cessation for cancer patients, between 65-97% of ambulatory cancer patients were screened for smoking status; 22-80% of patients who reported smoking were offered a referral to cessation services, and 21-45% of cancer patients accepted a referral. Conclusions: Assisting local clinical authorities to address tobacco use in the cancer care setting can result in significant systems change within a relatively short period of time. Support for sustained adoption and scaling of efforts to adopt smoking cessation as a therapeutic intervention for cancer care are planned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.616
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.011 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207