↓ Skip to main content

“If I’d Known …”—a Theory-Informed Systematic Analysis of Missed Opportunities in Optimising Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy and Accessing Relevant Support: a Qualitative Study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, July 2018
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
“If I’d Known …”—a Theory-Informed Systematic Analysis of Missed Opportunities in Optimising Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy and Accessing Relevant Support: a Qualitative Study
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12529-018-9735-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksandra Herbec, Ildiko Tombor, Lion Shahab, Robert West

Abstract

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is often used suboptimally by smokers. Previous research has focused on cognitions and attitudes as potential reasons. This study drew on theoretical frameworks of behaviour to comprehensively explore smokers' NRT use to identify new intervention targets. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 16 adult UK-based smokers and ex-smokers who used NRT in recent quit attempts (mean (SD) age = 34.9(10.3); 82.3% women). The COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model and the theoretical domains framework informed the interviews and analyses. Data were analysed in NVivo 11. Two related behaviours were identified relevant to NRT use: use of NRT per se and engaging with information and support with NRT use. A meta-theme of "missed opportunity" identified instances when smokers did not or could not engage in these behaviours. For use of NRT per se, these included limited knowledge, poor technique of use, low motivation to optimise use, and lack of role models. For engaging with information and support, they included low awareness of optimal use techniques, selective information-seeking, low expectations, limited exposure to guidelines, deficient advice from healthcare professionals, and suboptimal product display. Prior suboptimal experience tended to negatively affect subsequent use and views. Participants were interested in accessible and comprehensive guidelines on NRT and its use. There appear to be important missed opportunities for optimal use of NRT both in terms of use itself and engagement with information on optimal use. These missed opportunities arise from a range of capability, motivational, and opportunity-related factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Psychology 8 15%
Computer Science 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,602,707
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#60
of 909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,593
of 329,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 329,967 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.