Understanding Emerging Adults’ Decision-Making Process When Selecting a Smoking Cessation Approach: A Grounded Theory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rates of cigarette smoking have been markedly reduced in recent decades, but young adults (or emerging adults) continue to have the highest rate of tobacco use in Ontario, Canada. Though preventing smoking initiation is optimal, positive outcomes of cessation early in the lifespan make it clear that cessation support for smokers in this age group is critical. Despite research into the effectiveness of quitting approaches and smokers’ preferred approaches to quitting, it remains largely unclear how smokers characterized as emerging adults (Arnett, 2000) make and act upon “real-world” decisions about which cessation approach to use. To learn more about this important aspect of the quitting process, this study investigated emerging adults’ experiences of choosing their approach to quitting. Twenty-six recent quitters between the ages of 19-29 participated in semi-structured interviews. Grounded theory methods were used to develop a framework explaining the decision-making process successful quitters engaged in when choosing a smoking-cessation approach. The newly proposed “Choosing How To Quit” Framework shows a decision making process that includes three distinct phases: Awareness of Approaches; Personal Reflection; Making a Choice. Successful emerging-adult quitters chose a quitting approach by drawing on a variety of sources for information and exploring personal facets including their past experiences, real-life daily-living considerations and an understanding of their present and future-selves. The Framework offers emerging adults and cessation supporters new realistic avenues to consider or explore when making the decision about a cessation approach, potentially leading to a greater likelihood of success. As a preliminary theory, the CHQ Framework requires further investigation, including into which components may be most essential to the decision-making process.
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 | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".