Exploring the impact of efficacy messages on cessation-relatedoutcomes using Ecological Momentary Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Observational studies indicate that cigarette package inserts with efficacy messages about the benefits of quitting (i.e. response efficacy) and recommendations for successful cessation increase smokers' self-efficacy to quit and promote sustained cessation. However, the effects of inserts with such efficacy messages have not been studied using experimental designs. This study used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to assess smokers' responses to efficacy inserts. METHODS: In a randomized case-crossover study among smokers from the United States (n=23), participants received a one-week supply of cigarettes with efficacy inserts and a one-week supply without any inserts, and were randomized to use the packs with inserts on either the first or second week of the study. For 14 consecutive days, participants used a smartphone to answer brief surveys on cessation-related variables during smoking sessions and at the beginning of each day. Multilevel mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models compared responses during the insert period to those of the non-insert period. RESULTS: The insert period was associated with greater desire to quit (b=0.21, p=0.012), motivation to quit (b=0.18, p=0.001), self-efficacy to cut down (b=0.26, p<0.001) and to quit (b=0.28, p<0.000), and response efficacy/perceived benefits of quitting (b=0.13, p=0.012). Insert exposure was not significantly associated with forgoing cigarettes (OR=1.9, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this EMA study suggest that inserts with efficacy messages may promote determinants of smoking cessation. This is consistent with observational research in Canada, which is the only country to use inserts with efficacy messages as well as pictorial warnings about smoking risks on the outside of packs. Future studies should assess the extent to which efficacy inserts can not only be used to communicate health information to smokers but also work in synergy with pictorial warnings.
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) | 0.001 | 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".