Evaluating the effectiveness of recovery-oriented interventions for youth who vape nicotine: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The increase in nicotine vaping among youth has emerged as a critical public health concern. Vaping among youth is linked to adverse health outcomes, including nicotine addiction, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases and mental health challenges. Recently, there has been a growing demand for research to expand on treatments to enhance the recovery process from vaping nicotine in youth. To this date, no comprehensive review identifies all interventions available for vaping recovery and compares their effectiveness in youth. This proposed systematic review seeks to identify all recovery-oriented interventions for youth aged 10-24 that facilitate vaping recovery and evaluate the measured effectiveness. This review will serve to support healthcare practitioners, nurses and policymakers to further understand recovery interventions and aid in improving vaping recovery among youth. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This protocol, registered with PROSPERO, adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) framework, and the final review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure quality and replicability. The review will comprise studies including youth aged 10-24 engaging in nicotine vaping. A comprehensive search will be conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL, with no restrictions on the date range due to the recency of the topic. Two independent reviewers will screen the identified research for eligibility at the title and abstract levels, with any disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. The review will include randomised control trials and quasi-experimental studies. Full-text review and data extraction will be standardised and completed by the primary researcher. Additionally, studies will be assessed for quality and potential biases. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given that this is a review of existing literature, no ethics approval is required. The focus on youth necessitates careful consideration of ethical standards. This review is committed to contributing responsibly to public health knowledge regarding youth vaping recovery. The results from this review will be disseminated through publication in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and likely through posters and presentations at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024543994.
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 | 0.091 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.014 |
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".