| Title |
E-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids: a survey among practitioners in Italy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-015-0772-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lambros Lazuras, Milena Muzi, Caterina Grano, Fabio Lucidi |
| Abstract |
To describe experiences with and beliefs about e-cigarettes as safe and useful aids for smoking cessation among healthcare professionals providing smoking cessation services. Using a cross-sectional design, anonymous structured questionnaires were completed by 179 healthcare professionals in public smoking cessation clinics across 20 regions in Italy. Service providers reported that considerably more smokers made inquiries about e-cigarettes in 2014 than in 2013. The most frequent inquiries concerned the ingredients, safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids. Clients used e-cigarettes to quit smoking, cut down the number of conventional cigarettes smoked, have a safe alternative to smoking, and protect their health while continuing to smoke. More than 60 % of service providers reported favourable beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes, and believed that e-cigarettes are as effective as other smoking cessation aids, including pharmacotherapy. Despite limited empirical evidence, service providers in Italy viewed e-cigarettes, as safe and effective smoking cessation aids. More concerted efforts are needed to improve knowledge about e-cigarettes among service providers, to guide their clinical practice and decision-making with respect to e-cigarettes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 18% |
| Psychology | 11 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 December 2015.
All research outputs
#5,309,630
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#593
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,957
of 396,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 396,020 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.