↓ Skip to main content

Comparing effects of tobacco use prevention modalities: need for complex system models

Overview of attention for article published in Tobacco Induced Diseases, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing effects of tobacco use prevention modalities: need for complex system models
Published in
Tobacco Induced Diseases, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1617-9625-11-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steve Sussman, David Levy, Kristen Hassmiller Lich, Crystal W Cené, Mimi M Kim, Louise A Rohrbach, Frank J Chaloupka

Abstract

Many modalities of tobacco use prevention programming have been implemented including various policy regulations (tax increases, warning labels, limits on access, smoke-free policies, and restrictions on marketing), mass media programming, school-based classroom education, family involvement, and involvement of community agents (i.e., medical, social, political). The present manuscript provides a glance at these modalities to compare relative and combined impact of them on youth tobacco use. In a majority of trials, community-wide programming, which includes multiple modalities, has not been found to achieve impacts greater than single modality programming. Possibly, the most effective means of prevention involves a careful selection of program type combinations. Also, it is likely that a mechanism for coordinating maximally across program types (e.g., staging of programming) is needed to encourage a synergistic impact. Studying tobacco use prevention as a complex system is considered as a means to maximize effects from combinations of prevention types. Future studies will need to more systematically consider the role of combined programming.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 19%
Social Sciences 7 19%
Psychology 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2013.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Tobacco Induced Diseases
#182
of 591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,481
of 286,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tobacco Induced Diseases
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.