↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

System change interventions for smoking cessation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
45 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
Title
System change interventions for smoking cessation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010742.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis Thomas, Michael J Abramson, Billie Bonevski, Johnson George

Abstract

System change interventions for smoking cessation are policies and practices designed by organizations to integrate the identification of smokers and the subsequent offering of evidence-based nicotine dependence treatments into usual care. Such strategies have the potential to improve the provision of smoking cessation support in healthcare settings, and cessation outcomes among those who use them. To assess the effectiveness of system change interventions within healthcare settings, for increasing smoking cessation or the provision of smoking cessation care, or both. We searched databases including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in February 2016. We also searched clinical trial registries: WHO clinical trial registry, US National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical trial registry. We checked 'grey' literature, and handsearched bibliographies of relevant papers and publications. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and interrupted time series studies that evaluated a system change intervention, which included identification of all smokers and subsequent offering of evidence-based nicotine dependence treatment. Using a standardized form, we extracted data from eligible studies on study settings, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest (both cessation and system-level outcomes). For cessation outcomes, we used the strictest available criteria to define abstinence. System-level outcomes included assessment and documentation of smoking status, provision of advice to quit or cessation counselling, referral and enrolment in quitline services, and prescribing of cessation medications. We assessed risks of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook and categorized each study as being at high, low or unclear risk of bias. We used a narrative synthesis to describe the effectiveness of the interventions on various outcomes, because of significant heterogeneity among studies. We included seven cluster-randomized controlled studies in this review. We rated the quality of evidence as very low or low, depending on the outcome, according to the GRADE standard. Evidence of efficacy was equivocal for abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up (four studies), and for the secondary outcome 'prescribing of smoking cessation medications' (two studies). Four studies evaluated changes in provision of smoking cessation counselling and three favoured the intervention. There were significant improvements in documentation of smoking status (one study), quitline referral (two studies) and quitline enrolment (two studies). Other secondary endpoints, such as asking about tobacco use (three studies) and advising to quit (three studies), also indicated some positive effects. The available evidence suggests that system change interventions for smoking cessation may not be effective in achieving increased cessation rates, but have been shown to improve process outcomes, such as documentation of smoking status, provision of cessation counselling and referral to smoking cessation services. However, as the available research is limited we are not able to draw strong conclusions. There is a need for additional high-quality research to explore the impact of system change interventions on both cessation and system-level outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 20%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Other 9 6%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 37 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 16%
Psychology 13 8%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 40 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#861,144
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,252
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,493
of 366,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#63
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 366,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 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 70% of its contemporaries.