↓ Skip to main content

“Right to recommend, wrong to require”- an empirical and philosophical study of the views among physicians and the general public on smoking cessation as a condition for surgery

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
“Right to recommend, wrong to require”- an empirical and philosophical study of the views among physicians and the general public on smoking cessation as a condition for surgery
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0237-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joar Björk, Niklas Juth, Niels Lynøe

Abstract

In many countries, there are health care initiatives to make smokers give up smoking in the peri-operative setting. There is empirical evidence that this may improve some, but not all, operative outcomes. However, it may be feared that some support for such policies stems from ethically questionable opinions, such as paternalism or anti-smoker sentiments. This study aimed at investigating the support for a policy of smoking cessation prior to surgery among Swedish physicians and members of the general public, as well as the reasons provided for this. A random sample of general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons (n = 795) as well as members of the general public (n = 485) received a mail questionnaire. It contained a vignette case with a smoking 57-year old male farmer with hip osteoarthritis. The patient had been recommended hip replacement therapy, but told that in order to qualify for surgery he needed to give up smoking four weeks prior to and after surgery. The respondents were asked whether making such qualifying demands is acceptable, and asked to rate their agreement with pre-set arguments for and against this policy. Response rates were 58.2% among physicians and 53.8% among the general public. Of these, 83.9% and 86.6%, respectively, agreed that surgery should be made conditional upon smoking cessation. Reference to the peri-operative risks associated with smoking was the most common argument given. However, there was also strong support for the argument that such a policy is mandated in order to achieve long term health gains. There is strong support for a policy of smoking cessation prior to surgery in Sweden. This support is based on considerations of peri-operative risks as well as the general long term risks of smoking. This study indicates that paternalistic attitudes may inform some of the support for peri-operative smoking cessation policies and that at least some respondents seem to favour a "recommendation strategy" vis-à-vis smoking cessation prior to surgery rather than a "requirement strategy". The normative reasons speak in favour of the "recommendation strategy".

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 16 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Psychology 4 10%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,384,055
of 24,385,762 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#806
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,323
of 451,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,385,762 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 451,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.