Tobacco Smoking Behaviors in Cancer Survivors: The Mediation Effect of Personality and Emotional Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The smoking behaviour of patients following a cancer diagnosis is a critical risk factor for several physical diseases; it can increase the risk of second primary tumors and lower cancer treatment efficacy. Despite this, a great number of survivors continue to smoke after the diagnosis. This observational, cross-sectional on-line study aimed to assess the relationship between the impact of cancer diagnosis on survivors and their smoking behavior, and whether emotional intelligence and personality might mediate this relationship. Ninety-four Italian survivors completed a set of questionnaires: Big Five Inventory; Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; Impact of Event Scale; Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale. The results obtained from the mediation analyses highlighted that the indirect effect on the relationship between the psychological impact of the diagnosis and smoking behaviors was partially mediated by neuroticism (Intrusion: 95% CI [0.00; 0.11]; Avoidance: 95% CI [0.00; 0.18]). Additionally, the data suggested that the relationship between the psychological impact of the diagnosis and smoking behaviors was partially mediated by the utilization of emotions dimension of emotional intelligence (Intrusion: 95% CI [0.00; 0.10]; Avoidance: 95% CI [0.00; 0.22]). Overall, this study suggests the importance of designing interventions to support smoking interruption based on the “mapping” of individual needs and emotional regulation strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".