↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness and economic evaluation of self-help educational materials for the prevention of smoking relapse: randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Health technology assessment : HTA / NHS R & D HTA Programme., July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Effectiveness and economic evaluation of self-help educational materials for the prevention of smoking relapse: randomised controlled trial
Published in
Health technology assessment : HTA / NHS R & D HTA Programme., July 2015
DOI 10.3310/hta19590
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annie Blyth, Vivienne Maskrey, Caitlin Notley, Garry R Barton, Tracey J Brown, Paul Aveyard, Richard Holland, Max O Bachmann, Stephen Sutton, Jo Leonardi-Bee, Thomas H Brandon, Fujian Song

Abstract

Most people who quit smoking successfully for a short period will return to smoking again in 12 months. A previous exploratory meta-analysis indicated that self-help booklets may be effective for smoking relapse prevention in unaided quitters. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a set of self-help educational booklets to prevent smoking relapse in people who had stopped smoking with the aid of behavioural support. This is an open, randomised controlled trial and qualitative process evaluation. Trial participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups, using a simple randomisation process without attempts to stratify by participant characteristics. The participant allocation was 'concealed' because the recruitment of quitters occurred before the random allocation. Short-term quitters were recruited from NHS Stop Smoking Clinics, and self-help educational materials were posted to study participants at home. A total of 1407 carbon monoxide (CO)-validated quitters at 4 weeks after quit date in NHS Stop Smoking Clinics. The trial excluded pregnant women and quitters who were not able to read the educational materials in English. Participants in the experimental group (n = 703) received a set of eight revised Forever Free booklets, and participants in the control group (n = 704) received a single leaflet that is currently given to NHS patients. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted 3 and 12 months after quit date. The primary outcome was prolonged, CO-verified abstinence from months 4 to 12 during which time no more than five cigarettes were smoked. The secondary outcomes included self-reported abstinence during the previous 7 days at 3 and 12 months, CO-verified abstinence at 12 months, costs (NHS and NHS and participant medication costs perspectives) and quality-adjusted life-years. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate effect-modifying variables. A simultaneous qualitative process evaluation was conducted to help interpret the trial results. Data from 1404 participants were used for the final analysis, after excluding three participants who died before the 12-month follow-up. The proportion with prolonged abstinence from months 4 to 12 after quit date was 36.9% in the intervention group and 38.6% in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.15; p = 0.509). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in secondary smoking outcomes. People who reported knowing risky situations for relapse and using strategies to handle urges to smoke were less likely to relapse. However, there were no differences between the groups in the proportion of participants who reported that they knew any more about coping skills, and no differences in reported use of strategies to cope with urges to smoke between the trial groups. The qualitative study found that some quitters considered self-help booklets unhelpful for smoking relapse prevention, although positive feedback by participants was common. Among quitters who had stopped smoking with the aid of intensive behavioural support, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of smoking relapse between those who subsequently received a set of eight revised Forever Free booklets and those who received a single leaflet. Although many people had suboptimal strategies to prevent relapse and most relapsed, the Forever Free booklets proved an ineffective medium for teaching them the skills to prevent relapse. Further research should focus on interventions that may increase the use of coping skills when required. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36980856. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 61 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 16 25%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Other 19 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 21 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 30%
Psychology 7 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 8 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,164,784
of 12,535,834 outputs
Outputs from Health technology assessment : HTA / NHS R & D HTA Programme.
#298
of 787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,149
of 234,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health technology assessment : HTA / NHS R & D HTA Programme.
#18
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,535,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 234,338 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.