↓ Skip to main content

Adding spirometry, carbon monoxide, and pulmonary symptom results to smoking cessation counseling

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 1990
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Adding spirometry, carbon monoxide, and pulmonary symptom results to smoking cessation counseling
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 1990
DOI 10.1007/bf02602303
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy L. Risser, Donald W. Belcher

Abstract

Smokers are often advised to quit in a discussion of future health risks. The authors tested whether adding information about personal effects of smoking would motivate hospital outpatients to stop smoking more than advice about potential hazards would. Ninety smokers in a general screening clinic were randomized to receive education alone or education plus an additional motivational intervention that contained immediate feedback about the smoker's exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) values, spirometry results, and pulmonary symptoms. A self-report of smoking status was obtained one, four, and 12 months after the intervention. In addition, at 12 months, exhaled CO measurements were made. Smokers who received the additional motivational intervention were more than twice as likely to report quitting some time during the 12-month follow-up (40% vs. 16%, p = 0.015). At 12 months, 33% of the intervention group and 10% of the control group smokers tested had achieved CO-validated cessation (p = 0.03). Counting all patients not contacted as continuing to smoke, the percentages were 20% vs. 7% (p = 0.06). These practical feedback methods to motivate cessation deserve testing in other settings.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 6%
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 30 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 39%
Psychology 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 17 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,912,748
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,487
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#927
of 60,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 60,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them