Outcomes Among People With Schizophrenia Participating in General-Population Smoking Cessation Treatment: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective People with schizophrenia are much more likely than others to smoke tobacco, raising risks of disease and premature mortality. These individuals are also less likely to quit successfully after treatment, but the few existing clinical and observational studies have been limited by small sample sizes, and have generally considered specialized treatment approaches. In this analysis, we examine outcomes, service use, and potential explanatory variables in a large sample of people with schizophrenia treated in a general-population cessation program. Method Our sample comprised 3,011 people with schizophrenia and 77,790 controls receiving free nicotine replacement therapy through 400 clinics and health centres. We analysed self-reported 7-day abstinence or reduction at 6-month follow-up, as well as the number of visits attended and self-reported difficulties in quitting. We adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and health variables, and used multiple imputation to address missing data. Results Abstinence was achieved by 16.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5% to 17.8%) of people with schizophrenia and 26.4% (95% CI, 26.0% to 26.7%) of others (absolute difference = 10.2%; 95% CI, 8.5% to 11.9%; P < 0.001). After adjustment, this difference was reduced to 7.3% (95% CI, 5.4% to 9.3%; P < 0.001). Reduction in use was reported by 11.8% (95% CI, 10.3% to 13.3%) and 12.5% (95% CI, 12.2% to 12.8%), respectively; this difference was nonsignificant after adjustment. People with schizophrenia attended more clinic visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.12% to 1.18%, P < 0.001) and reported more difficulties related to “being around other smokers” (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11% to 1.47%; P = 0.001). Conclusion There is abundant demand for tobacco cessation treatment in this population. Outcomes were substantially poorer for people with schizophrenia, and this difference was not explained by covariates. Cessation remained much better than for unaided quit attempts, however, and engagement was high, demonstrating that people with schizophrenia benefit from nonspecialized pharmacological treatment programs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".