| Title |
Randomized controlled trial of mailed Nicotine Replacement Therapy to Canadian smokers: study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-11-741 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John A Cunningham, Scott T Leatherdale, Peter L Selby, Rachel F Tyndale, Laurie Zawertailo, Vladyslav Kushnir |
| Abstract |
Considerable public health efforts are ongoing Canada-wide to reduce the prevalence of smoking in the general population. From 1985 to 2005, smoking rates among adults decreased from 35% to 19%, however, since that time, the prevalence has plateaued at around 18-19%. To continue to reduce the number of smokers at the population level, one option has been to translate interventions that have demonstrated clinical efficacy into population level initiatives. Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a considerable clinical research base demonstrating its efficacy and safety and thus public health initiatives in Canada and other countries are distributing NRT widely through the mail. However, one important question remains unanswered--do smoking cessation programs that involve mailed distribution of free NRT work? To answer this question, a randomized controlled trial is required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Psychology | 6 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 25 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 October 2011.
All research outputs
#13,355,173
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,452
of 14,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,394
of 131,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#128
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,735 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 131,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.