↓ Skip to main content

Are digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy effective? A systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Are digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy effective? A systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0390-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Ellen Griffiths, Katherine E. Brown, Emily Anne Fulton, Ildiko Tombor, Felix Naughton

Abstract

Behavioural support for smoking cessation in pregnancy can be effective; however, many pregnant women face barriers to seeking support to stop smoking. Some digital interventions have been found to be effective for smoking cessation in the general population and may be effective for supporting cessation in pregnancy due to their flexibility and the potential for personalisation. To date, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy. This review aims to assess the following: (1) whether digital interventions are effective at promoting smoking cessation among pregnant women; (2) which behaviour change techniques (BCTs) or combinations of BCTs are associated with the effectiveness of digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy; and (3) whether the number of BCTs used is associated with the effectiveness of digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy. This review will include digital interventions delivered largely through computer (PC or laptop), video/DVD, mobile phone (including smartphones) or portable handheld device (e.g. tablet, iPad) and include websites, mobile or tablet applications and SMS text messages. Interventions must be randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials aimed at women who smoke in pregnancy, with smoking cessation as a measured outcome (preferably the latest available point prevalence smoking status measure taken during pregnancy, biochemically verified if available). Electronic bibliographic databases will be searched to identify suitable studies indexed in the following: Academic Search Complete, ASSIA, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy will include key words and database-specific subject headings relating to 'pregnancy' and 'smoking' and synonyms for the terms 'digital' and 'randomised controlled trial'. Where required and where possible, the first and second authors will independently code interventions and control groups for BCTs. If data allows, meta-analyses will be used to assess intervention effectiveness and the effectiveness of BCTs. This systematic review will provide a detailed synthesis of the effectiveness of current research using digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy, to build on the evidence base and guide the development of future research in this area. PROSPERO CRD42016036201.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 121 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Psychology 20 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Computer Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 32 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,882,805
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,242
of 2,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,500
of 416,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#26
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 416,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.