Creating Standardized Tools for the Pharmacist-Led Assessment and Pharmacologic Management of Adult Canadians Wishing to Quit Smoking: A Consensus-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tobacco use continues to be recognized as the single most preventable cause of death worldwide. As the gatekeepers of and experts on pharmacotherapy, pharmacists play a vital role in facilitating smoking cessation. While existing frameworks have enabled pharmacists to provide smoking cessation services in Canada for many years, the way in which they are delivered vary considerably across the nation. The purpose of this initiative was to create standardized tools for the pharmacists providing cessation services to ensure all Canadians wishing to stop smoking have equal access to consistent, evidence-based care. An iterative process using repeated rounds of voting was employed to establish consensus among key opinion leaders on the most important items to include in tools for the pharmacist-led assessment and pharmacologic management of Canadian adults wishing to stop smoking. The results were used to create eight standardized documents for national use by pharmacists: a readiness to quit assessment tool, a patient consent form, a patient assessment form for past users of tobacco and/or tobacco-like products, a patient assessment form for current users of tobacco and/or tobacco-like products, a treatment algorithm, a treatment plan summary form, a prescribing documentation form, and a follow-up & monitoring documentation form. Although not described in detail in these documents, other strategies for smoking cessation (e.g., non-pharmacologic strategies (including quitting "cold turkey" and behavioural interventions), harm reduction strategies, etc.) should be considered when pharmacotherapy is inappropriate or undesired; care should be individualized based on a patient's previous experiences and current motivation. No single approach to treatment is endorsed by the authors. The consensus-based approach described here provides a suggested framework for harmonizing the pharmacist-led management of other ailments to optimize patient care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.234 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".