↓ Skip to main content

Exploring consensus on how to measure smoking cessation. A Delphi study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Exploring consensus on how to measure smoking cessation. A Delphi study
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4902-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kei Long Cheung, Dennis de Ruijter, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Iman Elfeddali, Ciska Hoving, Silvia M. A. A. Evers, Hein de Vries

Abstract

Different criteria regarding outcome measures in smoking research are used, which can lead to confusion about study results. Consensus in outcome criteria may enhance the comparability of future studies. This study aims (1) to provide an overview of tobacco researchers' considered preferences regarding outcome criteria in randomized controlled smoking cessation trials, and (2) to identify the extent to which researchers can reach consensus on the importance of these outcome criteria. A three-round online Delphi study was conducted among smoking cessation experts. In the first round, the most important smoking cessation outcome measures were collected by means of open-ended questions, which were categorized around self-reported and biochemical validation measures. Experts (n = 17) were asked to name the outcome measures (as well as their assessment method and ideal follow-up period) that they thought were important when assessing smoking-related outcomes. In the second (n = 48) and third rounds (n = 37), a list of outcome measures-identified in the first round-was presented to experts. Asking them to rate the importance of each measure on a seven-point scale. Experts reached consensus on several items. For self-reports, experts agreed that prolonged abstinence (6 or/and 12 months), point prevalence abstinence (7 days), continuous abstinence (6 months), and the number of cigarettes smoked (7 days) are important outcome measures. Experts reached consensus that biochemical validation methods should not always be used. The preferred biochemical validation methods were carbon monoxide (expired air) and cotinine (saliva). Preferred follow-ups included 6 and/or 12 months, with or without intermediate measurements. Findings suggest only partial compliance with the Russell standard and that more outcome measures may be important (including seven-day point-prevalence abstinence, number of cigarettes smoked, and cotinine when using biochemical validation). This study showed where there is and is not consensus, reflecting the need to develop a more comprehensive standard. For these purposes we provided suggestions for the Russell 2.0 standard.

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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 36 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 13%
Psychology 9 8%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 41 37%
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 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,866,607
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,593
of 15,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,448
of 440,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#131
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 440,701 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.