MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2939726539 · doi:10.2196/13508

Process Evaluation of a Medical Student–Delivered Smoking Prevention Program for Secondary Schools: Protocol for the Education Against Tobacco Cluster Randomized Trial

2019· article· en· W2939726539 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Titus J. Brinker, Fabian Buslaff, Janina Leonie Suhre, Marc Philipp Silchmüller, Evgenia Divizieva, Jilada Wilhelm, Gabriel Hillebrand, Dominik Penka, Benedikt Gaim, Susanne Swoboda, Sonja Baumermann, Jörg Walther, Christian Martin Brieske, Hannah Maria Baumert, Ole Anhuef, Jonas Alfitian, Anil Batra, Lava Taha, Ute Mons, Felix J. Hofmann, Ailís Ceara Haney, Caelán Max Haney, Samuel Schaible, Thien-An Tran, Hanna Beißwenger, Tobias Stark, David A. Groneberg, Werner Seeger, Aayushi Srivastava, Henning Gall, Julia Holzapfel, Nancy A. Rigotti, Tanja Gabriele Baudson, Alexander Enk, Stefan Fröhling, Christof von Kalle, Breno Bernardes‐Souza, Rayanna Mara de Oliveira Santos Pereira, Roger Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialMedical educationTobacco useCluster (spacecraft)MedicineSmoking preventionCluster randomised controlled trialSecondary preventionAlternative medicineComputer sciencePublic healthEnvironmental healthNursingPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most smokers start smoking during their early adolescence under the impression that smoking entails positive attributes. Given the addictive nature of cigarettes, however, many of them might end up as long-term smokers and suffering from tobacco-related diseases. To prevent tobacco use among adolescents, the large international medical students' network Education Against Tobacco (EAT) educates more than 40,000 secondary school students per year in the classroom setting, using evidence-based self-developed apps and strategies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the school-based EAT intervention in reducing smoking prevalence among seventh-grade students in Germany. Additionally, we aimed to improve the intervention by drawing conclusions from our process evaluation. METHODS: We conduct a cluster-randomized controlled trial with measurements at baseline and 9, 16, and 24 months postintervention via paper-and-pencil questionnaires administered by teachers. The study groups consist of randomized schools receiving the 2016 EAT curriculum and control schools with comparable baseline data (no intervention). The primary outcome is the difference of change in smoking prevalence between the intervention and control groups at the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are between-group differences of changes in smoking-related attitudes and the number of new smokers, quitters, and never-smokers. RESULTS: A total of 11,268 students of both sexes, with an average age of 12.32 years, in seventh grade of 144 secondary schools in Germany were included at baseline. The prevalence of cigarette smoking in our sample was 2.6%. The process evaluation surveys were filled out by 324 medical student volunteers, 63 medical student supervisors, 4896 students, and 141 teachers. CONCLUSIONS: The EAT cluster randomized trial is the largest school-based tobacco-prevention study in Germany conducted to date. Its results will provide important insights with regards to the effectiveness of medical student-delivered smoking prevention programs at school. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13508.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.010

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→