↓ Skip to main content

Randomized Controlled Trial of Group-Based Culturally Specific Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Among African American Smokers

Overview of attention for article published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
95 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.
Article details
Title
Randomized Controlled Trial of Group-Based Culturally Specific Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Among African American Smokers
Published in
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1093/ntr/ntw181
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study tested the efficacy of group-based culturally specific cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for smoking cessation among low-income African Americans. Participants (N = 342; 63.8% male; M = 49.5 years old; M cigarettes per day = 18) were randomly assigned to eight sessions of group-based culturally specific or standard CBT, plus 8 weeks of transdermal nicotine patches. Biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence (ppa) was assessed at the end-of-therapy (ie, CBT) (EOT), and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Primary outcomes were the longitudinal intervention effect over the 12-month follow-up period, and 7-day ppa at the 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 7-day ppa at the EOT and 12-month follow-up, and intervention ratings. Generalized linear mixed modeling tested the longitudinal effect and logistic regression tested effects at specific timepoints. Generalized linear mixed modeling demonstrated a longitudinal effect of intervention condition. Specifically, 7-day ppa was two times (P = .02) greater following culturally specific CBT versus standard CBT when tested across all timepoints. Analyses by timepoint found no significant difference at 6 or 12 months, yet culturally specific CBT was efficacious at the EOT (62.5% vs. 51.5% abstinence, P = .05) and the 3-month follow-up (36.4% vs. 22.9% abstinence, P = .007). Finally, intervention ratings in both conditions were high, with no significant differences. Culturally specific CBT had a positive longitudinal effect on smoking cessation compared to a standard approach; however, the effects were driven by short-term successes. We recommend the use of group-based culturally specific CBT in this population when possible, and future research on methods to prevent long-term relapse. Culturally specific interventions are one approach to address smoking-related health disparities; however, evidence for their efficacy in African Americans is equivocal. Moreover, the methodological limitations of the existing literature preclude an answer to this fundamental question. We found a positive longitudinal effect of culturally specific CBT versus standard CBT for smoking cessation across the follow-up period. Analyses by assessment point revealed that the overall effect was driven by early successes. Best practices for treating tobacco use in this population should attend to ethnocultural factors, but when this is not possible, standard CBT is an alternative approach for facilitating long-term abstinence.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 5 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 43 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 48 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 26 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,578,275
of 30,025,272 outputs
Outputs from Nicotine & Tobacco Research
#743
of 3,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,530
of 315,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nicotine & Tobacco Research
#13
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,025,272 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 315,223 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 73% of its contemporaries.