A Qualitative Inquiry on Smokers’ Perceptions of Smoking Cessation during Covid-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This qualitative exploratory study explores smokers’ perspectives regarding smoking cessation processes amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Purposive sampling was employed to conduct semi-structured interviews with cigarette smokers visiting cardiac and pulmonary clinics at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Thematic analysis was performed to identify themes from the participants’ responses. Results: Three themes emerged from the thematic analysis. These were smoking cessation facilitators, smoking cessation barriers, and COVID-19 impacts on smoking cessation. Awareness and education, threat of acquiring health problems, religious beliefs and family or support system behave as smoking cessation facilitators. While, role modeling, associating smoking to stress relief, and cigarette dependency were major barriers to smoking cessation or prevention. There were mixed perceptions regarding association of cigarette smoking and COVID-19. However, some of the participants shared feelings of fear for being vulnerable to COVID-19 and its complications. Conclusion: The findings of this study generated significant recommendations for providing effective and optimal smoking cessation interventions such as not missing the teachable moment for smoking cessation counselling, anti-smoking smoking efforts from religious perspectives, and strict implementation of anti-smoking regulations in the country.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".