↓ Skip to main content

Do Neurobiological Understandings of Smoking Influence Quitting Self-Efficacy or Treatment Intentions?

Overview of attention for article published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research, June 2017
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Do Neurobiological Understandings of Smoking Influence Quitting Self-Efficacy or Treatment Intentions?
Published in
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1093/ntr/ntx144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kylie Morphett, Adrian Carter, Wayne Hall, Jayne Lucke, Brad Partridge, Coral Gartner

Abstract

Addiction is increasingly defined as a "brain disease" caused by changes to neurochemistry. While nicotine addiction has historically been excluded in the brain disease model of addiction (BDMA), it is beginning to be labelled a chronic brain disease. We investigated whether Australian smokers endorse brain-based explanations of smoking, and whether these beliefs are associated with quitting self-efficacy or treatment intentions. Cross-sectional study of Australian smokers (N=1,538) who completed a survey measuring their agreement with statements on the brain's role in smoking. Logistic regressions tested associations between these items and sociodemographic variables, quitting self-efficacy and intention to use cessation medications. The majority (57.9%) agreed that smoking changed brain chemistry and 34.4% agreed that smoking was a brain disease. Younger and those with more education were more likely to endorse brain-based understandings of smoking. Participants who agreed smoking changed brain chemistry were more likely to report an intention to use cessation medicines (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2) as were those who agreed that smoking was a brain disease (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1). Self-efficacy did not differ between those who agreed and disagreed that smoking changed brain chemistry. However, those who agreed that smoking was a brain disease had higher self-efficacy than those who disagreed (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.3). A neurobiological view of smoking does not dominate public understandings of smoking in Australia. Endorsement of neurobiological explanations of smoking were associated with increased intention to use cessation aids, but were not associated with reduced self-efficacy. Explaining tobacco dependence in neurobiological terms is unlikely to induce feelings of fatalism in relation to smoking cessation. Those who endorse biomedical explanations of smoking may be more open to using cessation pharmacotherapies. Describing smoking in terms of alterations in brain chemistry may be more acceptable to smokers than labelling smoking a "brain disease" or "brain disorder."

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Unspecified 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 38%
Computer Science 1 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Unspecified 1 13%
Physics and Astronomy 1 13%
Other 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,300,363
of 11,618,931 outputs
Outputs from Nicotine & Tobacco Research
#395
of 1,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,531
of 266,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nicotine & Tobacco Research
#10
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,618,931 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 266,733 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 70% of its contemporaries.