↓ Skip to main content

Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001746.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruchi Baxi, Mohit Sharma, Robert Roseby, Adam Polnay, Naomi Priest, Elizabeth Waters, Nick Spencer, Premila Webster

Abstract

Exposure to other people's cigarette smoke (environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS) is an important child health issue. To determine the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce exposure of children to ETS. The Tobacco Addiction Group register of studies was searched. MEDLINE, EMBASE and four other health and psychology databases were searched electronically, bibliographies of retrieved primary studies were checked and specialists in the area consulted. Controlled trials with or without random allocation were included in this review if they addressed participants (parents and other family members, child care workers and teachers) involved with the care and education of infants and young children (aged 0-12 years). All mechanisms for reduction of children's environmental tobacco smoke exposure, and smoking prevention, cessation, and control programmes targeting these participants are included. These include smoke free policies and legislation, health promotion, social-behavioural therapies, technology, education and clinical interventions. Two reviewers independently assessed studies and extracted data. Due to heterogeneity of methodologies and outcomes, no summary measures were possible and results were synthesised using narrative summaries. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, one of which was subsequently excluded. Three interventions were targeted at populations or community settings, seven studies were conducted in the well child health care setting and eight in the ill child health care setting. Twelve of these studies are from North America. In 12 of the 18 studies there was reduction of ETS exposure for children in both intervention and comparison groups. In only four of the 18 studies was there a statistically significant intervention effect. Three of these successful studies employed intensive counselling interventions targeted to smoking parents. There is little difference between the well infant, child respiratory illness and other child illness settings as contexts for parental smoking cessation interventions. The fourth successful intervention was in the school setting targeting the ETS exposure of children from smoking fathers. Brief counselling interventions, successful in the adult health setting when coming from physicians, cannot be extrapolated to adults in the setting of child health. There is limited support for more intensive counselling interventions. There is no clear evidence for differences between the respiratory, non-respiratory ill child, well child and peripartum settings as contexts for reduction of children's ETS exposure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 280 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 17%
Researcher 46 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Other 57 20%
Unknown 48 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 31%
Psychology 36 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 12%
Social Sciences 28 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 66 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,855,635
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,538
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,804
of 237,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 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 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 237,273 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 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 57% of its contemporaries.