Multicomponent Workplace Tobacco Cessation Interventions: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tobacco is the leading modifiable risk factor for cancer and other chronic diseases. The workplace provides an opportunity to advance tobacco cessation efforts. Combining tobacco cessation with complementary components addressing mental health, physical activity, and healthy eating has demonstrated effectiveness in non-workplace settings. This scoping review examines the literature on multicomponent workplace tobacco cessation interventions to identify core components and implementation facilitators and barriers to support uptake in the workplace setting. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews and Arksey and O'Malley's five-step process. Peer-reviewed literature published in the past 20 years was searched across 9 databases. A search for relevant gray literature (i.e., conference papers/proceedings) was also completed. Articles were screened by two independent researchers for inclusion. Included studies evaluated workplace interventions recruiting individuals to participate in a tobacco cessation program alongside a complementary component (i.e., physical activity, mental health, healthy eating). RESULTS: Most of the 12 included studies paired tobacco cessation with mental health or stress reduction interventions. Most complementary components targeted the individual versus organizational or policy levels. The synthesized facilitators indicated that multicomponent interventions should be incentivized and tailored to adequately meet the needs of different workplaces and employees. DISCUSSION: This scoping review synthesizes studies integrating multiple complementary program components into workplace tobacco cessation efforts. Future interventions should implement tobacco cessation interventions at multiple levels, combining complementary components to maximize effectiveness and overcome barriers (e.g., weight gain and stress) to successful outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".