↓ Skip to main content

Validating the use of veterans affairs tobacco health factors for assessing change in smoking status: accuracy, availability, and approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 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 (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Validating the use of veterans affairs tobacco health factors for assessing change in smoking status: accuracy, availability, and approach
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0501-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne C. Melzer, Erika A. Pinsker, Barbara Clothier, Siamak Noorbaloochi, Diana J. Burgess, Elisheva R. Danan, Steven S. Fu

Abstract

Accurate smoking status is key for research purposes, but can be costly and difficult to measure. Within the Veteran's Health Administration (VA), smoking status is recorded as part of routine care as "health factors" (HF)-fields that researchers can query through the electronic health record (EHR). Many researchers are interested in using these fields to track changes in smoking status over time, however the validity of this measure for assessing change is unknown. The primary goal of this project was to examine whether HFs can be used to accurately measure change in tobacco status over time, with secondary goals of assessing the optimum timeframe for assessment and variation in accuracy by site. Secondary analysis of the Veterans VICTORY study, a pragmatic smoking cessation randomized controlled trial conducted from 2009 to 2011. Eligible subjects were identified via the EHR using a past 90-day HF indicating current tobacco use (for example: "CURRENT SMOKER", "CURRENTLY USES TOBACCO"). Participants were surveyed at 1 year to determine prolonged smoking abstinence. We identified HFs for tobacco status within +/- 120 days of the follow-up survey mailing date and recorded the temporally closest HF. Among subjects with both measures, we compared the two for agreement using kappa statistics and concordance. 1713 subjects (33%) had both follow-up survey and HF data, 1594 (31%) had only a survey response, 790 (15%) had only HF and 1026 (20%) had neither. For subjects with both measures, there was 90% concordance and moderate agreement (Kappa 0.48, 95%CI 0.41-0.55, Sensitivity 54.4, 95%CI 41.1-67.7, Specificity 94.3, 95%CI 87.5-100.0). We found high concordance but only moderate agreement by kappa statistics between HFs and survey data. The difference is likely accounted for by the natural history of quit attempts, in which patients cycle in and out of quit attempts. HFs appear to provide an accurate measure of population level quit behavior utilizing data collected in the course of clinical care.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Professor 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Unspecified 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 10 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Unspecified 2 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 11 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,037,033
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#642
of 2,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,287
of 325,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#18
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 325,569 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.