MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390640901 · doi:10.1186/s12875-023-02259-3

Healthcare providers’ perspectives on implementing a brief physical activity and diet intervention within a primary care smoking cessation program: a qualitative study

2024· article· en· W4390640901 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadia Minian, Kamna Mehra, Mathangee Lingam, Rosa Dragonetti, Scott Veldhuizen, Laurie Zawertailo, Wayne K. deRuiter, Osnat C. Melamed, Rahim Moineddin, Kevin E. Thorpe, Valerie H. Taylor, Margaret Hahn, Peter Selby

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryDiabetes CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthToronto Public HealthSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoMedical Psychiatry AlliancePublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsSmoking cessationFacilitatorHealth careIntervention (counseling)MedicinePsychological interventionBehavior changeQualitative researchEmpowermentNursingDieticiansFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Post-smoking-cessation weight gain can be a major barrier to quitting smoking; however, adding behavior change interventions for physical activity (PA) and diet may adversely affect smoking cessation outcomes. The "Picking up the PACE (Promoting and Accelerating Change through Empowerment)" study assessed change in PA, fruit/vegetable consumption, and smoking cessation by providing a clinical decision support system for healthcare providers to utilize at the intake appointment, and found no significant change in PA, fruits/vegetable consumption, or smoking cessation. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore the factors affecting the implementation of the intervention and contextualize the quantitative results. METHODS: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare providers, using questions based on the National Implementation Research Network's Hexagon Tool. The data were analyzed using the framework's standard analysis approach. RESULTS: Most healthcare providers reported a need to address PA and fruit/vegetable consumption in patients trying to quit smoking, and several acknowledged that the intervention was a good fit since exercise and diet could improve smoking cessation outcomes. However, many healthcare providers mentioned the need to explain the fit to the patients. Social determinants of health (e.g., low income, food insecurity) were brought up as barriers to the implementation of the intervention by a majority of healthcare providers. Most healthcare providers recognized training as a facilitator to the implementation, but time was mentioned as a barrier by many of healthcare providers. Majority of healthcare providers mentioned allied health professionals (e.g., dieticians, physiotherapists) supported the implementation of the PACE intervention. However, most healthcare providers reported a need for individualized approach and adaptation of the intervention based on the patients' needs when implementing the intervention. The COVID-19 pandemic was found to impact the implementation of the PACE intervention based on the Hexagon Tool indicators. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a need to utilize a flexible approach when addressing PA and fruit/vegetable consumption within a smoking cessation program, based on the context of clinic, the patients' it is serving, and their life circumstances. Healthcare providers need support and external resources to implement this particular intervention. NAME OF THE REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04223336. DATE OF REGISTRATION: 7 January 2020 Retrospectively registered. URL OF TRIAL REGISTRY RECORD: https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04223336 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207