| Title |
Training health professionals in smoking cessation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000214.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristin V Carson, Marjolein EA Verbiest, Mathilde R Crone, Malcolm P Brinn, Adrian J Esterman, Willem JJ Assendelft, Brian J Smith |
| Abstract |
Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death world wide. There is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase smoking cessation attempts. A number of trials have examined whether skills training for health professionals can lead them to have greater success in helping their patients who smoke. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 | 6 | 27% |
| Spain | 3 | 14% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 5% |
| Philippines | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Israel | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Qatar | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 64% |
| Scientists | 5 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 427 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 420 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 66 | 15% |
| Researcher | 55 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 9% |
| Other | 30 | 7% |
| Other | 96 | 22% |
| Unknown | 94 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 148 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 10% |
| Psychology | 33 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 26 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 45 | 11% |
| Unknown | 123 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 12 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,116,698
of 25,887,951 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,161
of 13,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,716
of 177,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,887,951 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 177,220 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.