Use of Smoking Cessation Aids in a Convenience Sample of PLHIV in a Canadian Tertiary Care Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tobacco smoking is among the most significant predictors of cardiovascular disease and lung cancer in People Living with HIV (PLHIV). Smoking rates in this population are high, necessitating more effective smoking cessation strategies. We conducted a descriptive analysis of tobacco-related clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of smokers at a tertiary care HIV clinic in Montreal and an exploratory analysis of smoking cessation methods in order to identify potential areas of improvement in the clinic’s approach to smoking cessation. Methods: A convenience sample of patients completed a 10-minute questionnaire on tobacco-related behaviours and outcomes. Use of smoking cessation methods was compared using McNemar’s exact test with a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing ( p <0.01 considered significant). Results: Seventy-two PLHIV participated. Two-thirds of our total participants were interested in quitting within six months, but the use of effective cessation strategies was low, particularly for counseling and oral therapy. Overall, oral therapy ( e.g. varenicline) (16.7%) and counseling for cessation (5.6%) were used less than nicotine patches (50.0%) or ‘other’ methods (50.0%), which included abstinence and nicotine gum ( p <0.001). Conclusion: Despite a small and potentially unrepresentative sample of HIV positive tobacco smokers at our clinic, this study could help guide further research aiming to determine and address barriers to smoking cessation and access to effective smoking cessation aids in PLHIV. Future studies might consider factors that affect motivation to quit, such as co-morbid mental health and substance use disorders, or the attitudes of HIV healthcare providers.
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 | 0.001 | 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".