Free, easy and effective: how young adults used 8 weeks of mailed nicotine patches and to what effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Research shows the mass distribution of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is a high-impact, population-level strategy for smoking cessation; but underrepresentation of younger, and/or lighter, smokers challenges generalisability of findings to young adult smokers. Aims This naturalistic study examined how and with what effect young adult smokers used free nicotine patches provided through a mass mailout programme. Methods In total, 5,025 eligible 18–29 year-old smokers who accessed an online ordering platform received self-help materials and an 8-week course of patches matched to their consumption level (<10 cigarettes per day (cpd); ≥10 cpd). No other behavioural support occurred. Whether participants used patches correctly and achieved 30-day continuous abstinence at 6-month follow-up were assessed. Results Among 694 participants with complete data: 89% used some patches; 8% used the patches correctly for 8 weeks; 31.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 27.6, 34.7) achieved abstinence. Adjusted logistic regression analysis showed the highest odds of abstinence was associated with the correct use of patches (odds ratio = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.5, 5.1). Conclusions Mass distribution of free patches may be an effective public health measure for supporting younger, lighter smokers to attempt cessation, reduce consumption, or achieve abstinence. Emphasising why and how to use NRT for the entire treatment course may enhance outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 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".