↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol of the Our Futures Vaping Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based eHealth intervention to prevent e-cigarette use among adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2023
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Study protocol of the Our Futures Vaping Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based eHealth intervention to prevent e-cigarette use among adolescents
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12889-023-15609-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren A. Gardner, Amy-Leigh Rowe, Emily Stockings, Katrina E. Champion, Leanne Hides, Nyanda McBride, Steve Allsop, Siobhan O’Dean, Matthew Sunderland, Yong Yi Lee, Cathy Mihalopoulos, Becky Freeman, Janni Leung, Hayden McRobbie, Lexine Stapinski, Nicole Lee, Louise Thornton, Jennifer Debenham, Maree Teesson, Nicola C. Newton

Abstract

Effective and scalable prevention approaches are urgently needed to address the rapidly increasing rates of e-cigarette use among adolescents. School-based eHealth interventions can be an efficient, effective, and economical approach, yet there are none targeting e-cigarettes within Australia. This paper describes the protocol of the OurFutures Vaping Trial which aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the first school-based eHealth intervention targeting e-cigarettes in Australia. A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted among Year 7 and 8 students (aged 12-14 years) in 42 secondary schools across New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, Australia. Using stratified block randomisation, schools will be assigned to either the OurFutures Vaping Program intervention group or an active control group (health education as usual). The intervention consists of four web-based cartoon lessons and accompanying activities delivered during health education over a four-week period. Whilst primarily focused on e-cigarette use, the program simultaneously addresses tobacco cigarette use. Students will complete online self-report surveys at baseline, post-intervention, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-months after baseline. The primary outcome is the uptake of e-cigarette use at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the uptake of tobacco smoking, frequency/quantity of e-cigarettes use and tobacco smoking, intentions to use e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, knowledge about e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, motives and attitudes relating to e-cigarettes, self-efficacy to resist peer pressure and refuse e-cigarettes, mental health, quality of life, and resource utilisation. Generalized mixed effects regression will investigate whether receiving the intervention reduces the likelihood of primary and secondary outcomes. Cost-effectiveness and the effect on primary and secondary outcomes will also be examined over the longer-term. If effective, the intervention will be readily accessible to schools via the OurFutures platform and has the potential to make substantial health and economic impact. Without such intervention, young Australians will be the first generation to use nicotine at higher rates than previous generations, thereby undoing decades of effective tobacco control. The trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12623000022662; date registered: 10/01/2023).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 25 61%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 26 63%
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 11 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,920,295
of 25,888,065 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,244
of 17,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,591
of 425,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#44
of 407 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,888,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,905 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 425,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 407 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.