↓ Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of adding weight control simultaneously or sequentially to smoking cessation quitlines: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Comparative effectiveness of adding weight control simultaneously or sequentially to smoking cessation quitlines: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3231-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Terry Bush, Jennifer Lovejoy, Harold Javitz, Brooke Magnusson, Alula Jimenez Torres, Stacey Mahuna, Cody Benedict, Ken Wassum, Bonnie Spring

Abstract

Prevalence of multiple health risk behaviors is growing, and obesity and smoking are costly. Weight gain associated with quitting smoking is common and can interfere with quit success. Efficacy of adding weight management to tobacco cessation treatment has been tested with women in group sessions over an extended period of time, but has never been tested in real-world settings with men and women seeking help to quit. This paper describes the Best Quit study which tests the effectiveness of delivering tobacco and weight control interventions via existing quitline infrastructures. Eligible and consenting smokers (n = 2550) who call a telephone quitline will be randomized to one of three groups; the standard quitline or standard quitline plus a weight management program added either simultaneously or sequentially to the tobacco program. The study aims to test: 1) the effectiveness of the combined intervention on smoking cessation and weight, 2) the cost-effectiveness of the combined intervention on cessation and weight and 3) theoretically pre-specified mediators of treatment effects on cessation: reduced weight concerns, increased outcome expectancies about quitting and improved self-efficacy about quitting without weight gain. Baseline, 6 month and 12 month data will be analyzed using multivariate statistical analyses and groups will be compared on treatment adherence, quit rates and change in weight among abstinent participants. To determine if the association between group assignment and primary outcomes (30-day abstinence and change in weight at 6 months) is moderated by pre-determined baseline and process measures, interaction terms will be included in the regression models and their significance assessed. This study will generate information to inform whether adding weight management to a tobacco cessation intervention delivered by phone, mail and web for smokers seeking help to quit will help or harm quit rates and whether a simultaneous or sequential approach is better at increasing abstinence and reducing weight gain post quit. If proven effective, the combined intervention could be disseminated across the U.S. through quitlines and could encourage additional smokers who have not sought cessation treatment for fear of gaining weight to make quit attempts. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01867983 . Registered: May 30, 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 31 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Psychology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 39 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,336,685
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,947
of 14,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#318,270
of 364,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#339
of 356 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 364,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 356 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.