↓ Skip to main content

Vaporised nicotine and tobacco harm reduction for addressing smoking among people living with HIV: A cross-sectional survey of Australian HIV health practitioners’ attitudes

Overview of attention for article published in Drug & Alcohol Dependence, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Vaporised nicotine and tobacco harm reduction for addressing smoking among people living with HIV: A cross-sectional survey of Australian HIV health practitioners’ attitudes
Published in
Drug & Alcohol Dependence, May 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.03.023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie K. Bell, Gabriela Mena, Judith Dean, Mark Boyd, Charles Gilks, Coral Gartner

Abstract

Tobacco smoking is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among people living with HIV (PLHIV). Due to the limited success of standard abstinence-focused smoking cessation strategies in this population, there is growing interest in tobacco harm reduction (THR) approaches as an additional strategy to address these high smoking rates. This study explored the attitudes of health practitioners who provide healthcare to PLHIV towards THR. 179 Australian health practitioners who provide healthcare to PLHIV completed an online survey that measured their attitudes towards THR approaches, including switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes or vaporised nicotine products (VNPs). Respondents supported the concept of THR but were undecided on the role of VNPs. Respondents most commonly reported 'don't know' or 'undecided' responses to statements regarding VNPs. More respondents, however, agreed than disagreed that switching from smoking to long-term vaping could reduce risk (36% and 22% respectively) and be an effective strategy to help PLHIV to quit smoking (37% agree and 17% disagree). Only a minority of respondents (20%) agreed that VNPs are too harmful to recommend to patients, however around half (53%) were undecided. Despite supporting the principle of THR, health practitioners may require more evidence and knowledge about VNPs before being willing to consider them as a suitable intervention strategy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 19 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Psychology 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,476,524
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug & Alcohol Dependence
#2,570
of 6,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,908
of 327,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug & Alcohol Dependence
#87
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 327,119 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.