↓ Skip to main content

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
36 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 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.
Title
Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001292.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Lancaster, Lindsay F Stead

Abstract

Individual counselling from a smoking cessation specialist may help smokers to make a successful attempt to stop smoking. The review addresses the following hypotheses:1. Individual counselling is more effective than no treatment or brief advice in promoting smoking cessation.2. Individual counselling is more effective than self-help materials in promoting smoking cessation.3. A more intensive counselling intervention is more effective than a less intensive intervention. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field in May 2016. Randomized or quasi-randomized trials with at least one treatment arm consisting of face-to-face individual counselling from a healthcare worker not involved in routine clinical care. The outcome was smoking cessation at follow-up at least six months after the start of counselling. Both authors extracted data in duplicate. We recorded characteristics of the intervention and the target population, method of randomization and completeness of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. In analysis, we assumed that participants lost to follow-up continued to smoke. We expressed effects as a risk ratio (RR) for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the GRADE approach. We identified 49 trials with around 19,000 participants. Thirty-three trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention. There was high-quality evidence that individual counselling was more effective than a minimal contact control (brief advice, usual care, or provision of self-help materials) when pharmacotherapy was not offered to any participants (RR 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 1.77; 27 studies, 11,100 participants; I(2) = 50%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) of a benefit of counselling when all participants received pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51; 6 studies, 2662 participants; I(2) = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) for a small benefit of more intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; 11 studies, 2920 participants; I(2) = 48%). None of the five other trials that compared different counselling models of similar intensity detected significant differences. There is high-quality evidence that individually-delivered smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit. There is moderate-quality evidence of a smaller relative benefit when counselling is used in addition to pharmacotherapy, and of more intensive counselling compared to a brief counselling intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Unknown 288 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 17%
Student > Master 45 15%
Researcher 39 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 11%
Other 23 8%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 54 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 30%
Psychology 38 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 12%
Social Sciences 17 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Other 39 13%
Unknown 67 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 24 April 2020.
All research outputs
#234,844
of 15,099,310 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#528
of 11,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,607
of 265,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,099,310 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 265,385 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 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.