Telehealth Delivery of Tobacco Cessation Treatment in Cancer Care: An Ongoing Innovation Accelerated by the COVID-19 Pandemic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a rapid transformation in healthcare delivery. Ambulatory care abruptly shifted from in-person to telehealth visits with providers using digital video and audio tools to reach patients at home. Advantages to telehealth care include enhanced patient convenience and provider efficiencies, but financial, geographic, privacy, and access barriers to telehealth also exist. These are disproportionately greater for older adults and for those in rural areas, low-income communities, and communities of color, threatening to worsen preexisting disparities in tobacco use and health. Pandemic-associated regulatory changes regarding privacy and billing allowed many Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) programs in NCI-designated Cancer Centers to start or expand video-based telehealth care. Using 3 C3I programs as examples, we describe the methods used to shift to telehealth delivery. Although telephone-delivered treatment was already a core tobacco treatment modality with a robust evidence base, little research has yet compared the effectiveness of tobacco cessation treatment delivery by video versus phone or in-person modalities. Video-delivery has shown greater medication adherence, higher patient satisfaction, and better retention in care than phone-based delivery, and may improve cessation outcomes. We outline key questions for further investigation to advance telehealth for tobacco cessation treatment in cancer 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it