A community pharmacist-led smoking cessation intervention using a smartphone app (PharmQuit): A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHO supports the harnessing of mobile technologies to improve access to smoking cessation services. As such, this study evaluated the effectiveness of smoking cessation services provided by community pharmacists using PharmQuit compared with standard care. The study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that included 156 participants who were 18 years or older and smoked at least one cigarette daily for a month, were ready to quit, willing to participate, and had a smartphone. The study was performed at seven community pharmacies in three provinces in Thailand. Participants were allocated to the intervention (n = 78) and control groups (n = 78). Both groups received the usual smoking cessation services with pharmacotherapy and counseling from community pharmacists for 6 months. The intervention group received PharmQuit as an additional service. Both groups were scheduled for follow-up visits on days 7, 14, 30, 60, 120, and 180. The primary outcome was continuous abstinence rate on day 180. The secondary outcomes included 7-day point abstinence rate, number of cigarettes smoked per day, exhaled carbon monoxide levels, adherence rate to the program, and satisfaction with PharmQuit. An analysis using the intent-to-treat principle was performed. Smoking cessation rates and the number of cigarettes smoked per day were significantly higher during the follow-up visits in both groups (p < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The adherence rate to the smoking cessation program was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (74 days vs. 60 days, p > 0.05). The results showed the benefits of the contribution of community pharmacists. Although the inclusion of PharmQuit did not yield better results than pharmacists' counselling alone, it may help obtain better adherence to smoking cessation programs. Trial registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20200925004 on September 25, 2020 -retrospectively registered, http://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task=search&task2=view1&id=6841.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".