↓ Skip to main content

Missed opportunities: general practitioner identification of their patients’ smoking status

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Missed opportunities: general practitioner identification of their patients’ smoking status
Published in
BMC Primary Care, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0228-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie Bryant, Mariko Carey, Rob Sanson-Fisher, Elise Mansfield, Tim Regan, Alessandra Bisquera

Abstract

BackgroundIn order to provide smoking cessation support to their patients in line with clinical practice guidelines, general practitioners must first ascertain whether their patients¿ use tobacco. This study examined (i) the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of general practitioner detection of smoking, and (ii) the general practitioner and patient characteristics associated with detection of tobacco use.MethodsEligible patients completed a touchscreen computer survey while waiting for an appointment with their general practitioner. Patients self-reported demographic characteristics, medical history, and current smoking status. Following the patient¿s consultation, their general practitioner was asked to indicate whether the patient was a current smoker (yes/no/unsure/not applicable). Smoking prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated using patient self-report of smoking status as the gold standard. Generalised estimating equations were used to examine the general practitioner and patient characteristics associated with detection of tobacco use.ResultsFifty-one general practitioners and 1,573 patients in twelve general practices participated. Patient self-report of smoking was 11.3% compared to general practitioner estimated prevalence of 9.5%. Sensitivity of general practitioner assessment was 66% [95% CI 59¿73] while specificity was 98% [95% CI 97¿98]. Positive predictive value was 78% [95% CI 71¿85] and negative predictive value was 96% [95% CI 95¿97]. No general practitioner factors were associated with detection of smoking. Patients with a higher level of education or who responded `Other¿ were less likely to be detected as smokers than patients who had completed a high school or below level of education.ConclusionDespite the important role general practitioners play in providing smoking cessation advice and support, a substantial proportion of general practitioners do not know their patient¿s smoking status. This represents a significant missed opportunity in the provision of preventive healthcare. Electronic waiting room assessments may assist general practitioners in improving the identification of smokers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 23%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Psychology 3 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 11 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 08 February 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,714
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,786
of 360,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#26
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 360,584 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 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.