Rapid systematic review of smoking cessation interventions for people who smoke and have cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Higher rates of cancer are reported in smokers compared to non-smokers, and continued smoking following a cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced health outcomes and survival. Despite international evidence of increased risks, a substantial percentage of people with a cancer diagnosis continue to smoke. Patients may be unaware of the additional risks associated with continued smoking, and health care professionals may not engage with quit supports. As part of a larger feasibility study to develop a smoking cessation pathway in cancer services in Ireland, a rapid review of the evidence was completed. Methods Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL 2015 to December 2020 were conducted; with studies restricted to adults with a cancer diagnosis [lung, breast, cervical, head and neck] and published in English. No restriction was placed on study designs. 6404 studies were identified and uploaded into COVIDENCE platform, Cochrane's systematic review methods were adopted throughout, PRISMA reporting guidelines were used, and narrative data synthesis was completed (CRD 42020214204). Results The twenty-three-studies report evidence from USA, Canada, England, Lebanon, and Australia. The setting for all interventions was hospitals and cancer clinics. Evidence identifies high dropout rates, inconsistencies in approaches and duration of smoking cessation interventions with varied outcomes. A wide-ranging number of critical components emerged associated with optimal quit support- including the timing of and frequency of quit conversations, use of electronic records, in-person support meetings, provision of nicotine replacement therapy and extended use of Varenicline, smoking cessation services embedded in oncology depts, and engaging with families wanting to quit at the same time. Conclusions Developing tailored smoking cessation interventions are needed for smokers diagnosed with cancer to enable engagement. Key messages • Continued smoking following a cancer diagnosis is associated with reduced health outcomes. • Smoking cessation programmes for cancer patient should be tailored to meet needs.
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 | 0.028 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".