↓ Skip to main content

Smokers’ unprompted comments on cigarette additives during conversations about the genetic basis for nicotine addiction: a focus group study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Smokers’ unprompted comments on cigarette additives during conversations about the genetic basis for nicotine addiction: a focus group study
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5395-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sydney E. Philpott, Sarah Gehlert, Erika A. Waters

Abstract

Research designed to elicit smokers' cognitive and affective reactions to information about chemicals that tobacco companies add to cigarettes ("additives") found that knowledge is limited. However, little is known about smokers' unprompted thoughts and feelings about additives. Such information could be used to shape future communication efforts. We explored the content and possible functions of spontaneous statements about cigarette additives made by smokers during a study examining reactions to learning about the genetic link to nicotine addiction. Adult smokers (N = 84) were recruited from a medium-sized Midwestern city. Focus groups (N = 13) were conducted between April-September 2012. Data were analyzed by 2 coders using thematic analysis. Comments about cigarette additives arose without prompting by the focus group moderator. Three main themes were identified: (1) discussing additives helped participants navigate the conceptual link between smoking and genetics, (2) additives were discussed as an alternative mechanism for addiction to cigarettes, and (3) additives provided an alternative mechanism by which cigarette smoking exacerbates physical harm. Notably, discussion of additives contained a pervasive tone of mistrust illustrated by words like "they" and "them," by statements of uncertainty such as "you don't know what they're putting into cigarettes," and by negative affective verbalizations such as "nasty" and "disgusting". Participants had distinct beliefs about cigarette additives, each of which seemed to serve a purpose. Although mistrust may complicate communication about the health risks of tobacco use, health communication experts could use smokers' existing beliefs and feelings to better design more effective anti-smoking messages.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Student > Master 4 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 17%
Social Sciences 3 17%
Arts and Humanities 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,538,540
of 12,813,846 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,870
of 8,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,759
of 271,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,813,846 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 271,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them