| Title |
Study protocol for iQuit in Practice: a randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of tailored web- and text-based facilitation of smoking cessation in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-324 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen Sutton, Susan Smith, James Jamison, Sue Boase, Dan Mason, A Toby Prevost, James Brimicombe, Melanie Sloan, Hazel Gilbert, Felix Naughton |
| Abstract |
Primary care is an important setting for smoking cessation interventions. There is evidence for the effectiveness of tailored interventions for smoking cessation, and text messaging interventions for smoking cessation show promise. The intervention to be evaluated in this trial consists of two components: (1) a web-based program designed to be used by a practice nurse or other smoking cessation advisor (SCA); the program generates a cessation advice report that is highly tailored to relevant characteristics of the smoker; and (2) a three-month programme of automated tailored text messages sent to the smoker's mobile phone. The objectives of the trial are to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and to estimate the short-term effectiveness of the intervention in increasing the quit rate compared with usual care alone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 156 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 18% |
| Unknown | 37 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 14% |
| Psychology | 23 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Unknown | 49 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#17,666,271
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,373
of 14,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,147
of 199,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#247
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 199,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.