↓ Skip to main content

Does Motivation Matter? Analysis of a Randomized Trial of Proactive Outreach to VA Smokers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Does Motivation Matter? Analysis of a Randomized Trial of Proactive Outreach to VA Smokers
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3687-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisheva R. Danan, Anne M. Joseph, Scott E. Sherman, Diana J. Burgess, Siamak Noorbaloochi, Barbara Clothier, Sandra J. Japuntich, Brent C. Taylor, Steven S. Fu

Abstract

Current guidelines advise providers to assess smokers' readiness to quit, then offer cessation therapies to smokers planning to quit and motivational interventions to smokers not planning to quit. We examined the relationship between baseline stage of change (SOC), treatment utilization, and smoking cessation to determine whether the effect of a proactive smoking cessation intervention was dependent on smokers' level of motivation to quit. Secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. A total of 3006 current smokers, aged 18-80 years, at four Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Proactive care included proactive outreach (mailed invitation followed by telephone outreach), offer of smoking cessation services (telephone or face-to-face), and access to pharmacotherapy. Usual care participants had access to VA smoking cessation services and state telephone quitlines. Baseline SOC measured with Readiness to Quit Ladder, and 6-month prolonged abstinence self-reported at 1 year. At baseline, 35.8 % of smokers were in preparation, 38.2 % in contemplation, and 26.0 % in precontemplation. The overall interaction between SOC and treatment arm was not statistically significant (p = 0.30). Among smokers in preparation, 21.1 % of proactive care participants achieved 6-month prolonged abstinence, compared to 13.1 % of usual care participants (OR, 1.8 [95 % CI, 1.2-2.6]). Similarly, proactive care increased abstinence among smokers in contemplation (11.0 % vs. 6.5 %; OR, 1.8 [95 % CI, 1.1-2.8]). Smokers in precontemplation quit smoking at similar rates (5.3 % vs. 5.6 %; OR, 0.9 [95 % CI, 0.5-1.9]). Within each stage, uptake of smoking cessation treatments increased with higher SOC and with proactive care as compared with usual care. Mostly male participants limits generalizability. Randomization was not stratified by SOC. Proactive care increased treatment uptake compared to usual care across all SOC. Proactive care increased smoking cessation among smokers in preparation and contemplation but not in precontemplation. Proactively offering cessation therapies to smokers at all SOC will increase treatment utilization and population-level smoking cessation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 24 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 27 44%
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 15 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,063,936
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,438
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,163
of 304,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#43
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 304,413 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 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 65% of its contemporaries.