↓ Skip to main content

How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10865-017-9823-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer C. Morgan, M. Justin Byron, Sabeeh A. Baig, Irina Stepanov, Noel T. Brewer

Abstract

Laws and treaties compel countries to inform the public about harmful chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke. To encourage relevant research by behavioral scientists, we provide a primer on cigarette smoke toxicology and summarize research on how the public thinks about cigarette smoke chemicals. We systematically searched PubMed in July 2016 and reviewed citations from included articles. Four central findings emerged across 46 articles that met inclusion criteria. First, people were familiar with very few chemicals in cigarette smoke. Second, people knew little about cigarette additives, assumed harmful chemicals are added during manufacturing, and perceived cigarettes without additives to be less harmful. Third, people wanted more information about constituents. Finally, well-presented chemical information increased knowledge and awareness and may change behavior. This research area is in urgent need of behavioral science. Future research should investigate whether educating the public about these chemicals increases risk perceptions and quitting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Master 13 10%
Other 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 53 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 57 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,698,628
of 25,424,630 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#243
of 1,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,043
of 323,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,424,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 323,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.