↓ Skip to main content

Identifying effective behavioural components of Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation (IC-SMOKE) interventions: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2016
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 (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Identifying effective behavioural components of Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation (IC-SMOKE) interventions: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0253-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marijn de Bruin, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Maarten C. Eisma, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Robert West, Eleanor Bull, Susan Michie, Marie Johnston

Abstract

Systematic reviews of behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation vary in scope, quality, and applicability. The current review aims to generate more accurate and useful findings by (1) a detailed analysis of intervention elements that change behaviour (i.e. behaviour change techniques (BCTs)) and potential moderators of behaviour change (i.e. other intervention and sample characteristics) and (2) assessing and controlling for variability in support provided to comparison groups in smoking cessation trials. A systematic review will be conducted of randomized controlled trials of behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation in adults (with or without pharmacological support), with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, published after 1995. Eligible articles will be identified through the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register. Study authors will be asked for detailed descriptions of smoking cessation support provided to intervention and comparison groups. All data will be independently coded by two researchers. The BCT taxonomy v1 (tailored to smoking cessation interventions) and template for intervention description and replication criteria will be used to code intervention characteristics. Data collection will further include sample and trial characteristics and outcome data (smoking cessation rates). Multilevel mixed-effects meta-regression models will be used to examine which BCTs and/or BCT clusters delivered to intervention and comparison groups explain smoking cessation rates in treatment arms (and effect sizes) and what key moderators of behaviour change are. Predicted effect sizes of each intervention will be computed assuming all interventions are compared against comparison groups receiving the same levels of behavioural support (i.e. low, medium, and high levels). Multi-disciplinary advisory board members (policymakers, health care providers, and (ex-)smokers) will provide strategic input throughout the project to ensure the review's applicability to policy and practice. By capturing BCTs in intervention and comparison groups, this systematic review will provide more accurate estimates of the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, the most promising BCTs and/or BCT clusters associated with smoking cessation rates in intervention and comparison arms, and important moderators of behaviour change. The results could set new standards for conducting meta-analyses of behaviour change interventions and improve research, service delivery, and training in the area of smoking cessation. PROSPERO CRD42015025251.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Psychology 15 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,442,693
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#893
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,164
of 298,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 298,972 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.