↓ Skip to main content

Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
59 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
496 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
Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007078.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gemma M. J. Taylor, Michael N Dalili, Monika Semwal, Marta Civljak, Aziz Sheikh, Josip Car

Abstract

Tobacco use is estimated to kill 7 million people a year. Nicotine is highly addictive, but surveys indicate that almost 70% of US and UK smokers would like to stop smoking. Although many smokers attempt to give up on their own, advice from a health professional increases the chances of quitting. As of 2016 there were 3.5 billion Internet users worldwide, making the Internet a potential platform to help people quit smoking. To determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation, whether intervention effectiveness is altered by tailoring or interactive features, and if there is a difference in effectiveness between adolescents, young adults, and adults. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which included searches of MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (through OVID). There were no restrictions placed on language, publication status or publication date. The most recent search was conducted in August 2016. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants were people who smoked, with no exclusions based on age, gender, ethnicity, language or health status. Any type of Internet intervention was eligible. The comparison condition could be a no-intervention control, a different Internet intervention, or a non-Internet intervention. To be included, studies must have measured smoking cessation at four weeks or longer. Two review authors independently assessed and extracted data. We extracted and, where appropriate, pooled smoking cessation outcomes of six-month follow-up or more, reporting short-term outcomes narratively where longer-term outcomes were not available. We reported study effects as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).We grouped studies according to whether they (1) compared an Internet intervention with a non-active control arm (e.g. printed self-help guides), (2) compared an Internet intervention with an active control arm (e.g. face-to-face counselling), (3) evaluated the addition of behavioural support to an Internet programme, or (4) compared one Internet intervention with another. Where appropriate we grouped studies by age. We identified 67 RCTs, including data from over 110,000 participants. We pooled data from 45,194 participants.There were only four RCTs conducted in adolescence or young adults that were eligible for meta-analysis.Results for trials in adults: Nine trials compared a tailored and interactive Internet intervention to a non-active control. Pooled results demonstrated an effect in favour of the intervention (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.30, n = 7909). However, statistical heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 53%) and was unexplained, and the overall quality of evidence was low according to GRADE. Five trials compared an Internet intervention to an active control. The pooled effect estimate favoured the control group, but crossed the null (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09, n = 3806, I(2) = 0%); GRADE quality rating was high. Five studies evaluated an Internet programme plus behavioural support compared to a non-active control (n = 2334). Pooled, these studies indicated a positive effect of the intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.18). Although statistical heterogeneity was substantial (I(2) = 60%) and was unexplained, the GRADE rating was moderate. Four studies evaluated the Internet plus behavioural support compared to active control. None of the studies detected a difference between trial arms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18, n = 2769, I(2) = 0%); GRADE rating was moderate. Seven studies compared an interactive or tailored Internet intervention, or both, to an Internet intervention that was not tailored/interactive. Pooled results favoured the interactive or tailored programme, but the estimate crossed the null (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.22, n = 14,623, I(2) = 0%); GRADE rating was moderate. Three studies compared tailored with non-tailored Internet-based messages, compared to non-tailored messages. The tailored messages produced higher cessation rates compared to control, but the estimate was not precise (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41, n = 4040), and there was evidence of unexplained substantial statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 57%); GRADE rating was low.Results should be interpreted with caution as we judged some of the included studies to be at high risk of bias. The evidence from trials in adults suggests that interactive and tailored Internet-based interventions with or without additional behavioural support are moderately more effective than non-active controls at six months or longer, but there was no evidence that these interventions were better than other active smoking treatments. However some of the studies were at high risk of bias, and there was evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity. Treatment effectiveness in younger people is unknown.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 496 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 1%
United States 5 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 477 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 92 19%
Researcher 88 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 13%
Student > Bachelor 44 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 6%
Other 84 17%
Unknown 93 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 136 27%
Psychology 68 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 11%
Social Sciences 42 8%
Computer Science 15 3%
Other 63 13%
Unknown 118 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 30 April 2020.
All research outputs
#337,542
of 15,149,922 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#809
of 11,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,007
of 271,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,149,922 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 271,694 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 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.