↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
611 Mendeley
Title
Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001746.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Behrooz Behbod, Mohit Sharma, Ruchi Baxi, Robert Roseby, Premila Webster

Abstract

Children's exposure to other people's tobacco smoke (environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS) is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes for children. Parental smoking is a common source of children's exposure to ETS. Older children in child care or educational settings are also at risk of exposure to ETS. Preventing exposure to ETS during infancy and childhood has significant potential to improve children's health worldwide. To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce exposure of children to environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register and conducted additional searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), and the Social Science Citation Index & Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We conducted the most recent search in February 2017. We included controlled trials, with or without random allocation, that enrolled participants (parents and other family members, child care workers, and teachers) involved in the care and education of infants and young children (from birth to 12 years of age). All mechanisms for reducing children's ETS exposure were eligible, including smoking prevention, cessation, and control programmes. These include health promotion, social-behavioural therapies, technology, education, and clinical interventions. Two review authors independently assessed studies and extracted data. Due to heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures, we did not pool results but instead synthesised study findings narratively. Seventy-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and we assessed all evidence to be of low or very low quality based on GRADE assessment. We judged nine studies to be at low risk of bias, 35 to have unclear overall risk of bias, and 34 to have high risk of bias. Twenty-one interventions targeted populations or community settings, 27 studies were conducted in the well-child healthcare setting and 26 in the ill-child healthcare setting. Two further studies conducted in paediatric clinics did not make clear whether visits were made to well- or ill-children, and another included visits to both well- and ill-children. Forty-five studies were reported from North America, 22 from other high-income countries, and 11 from low- or middle-income countries. Only 26 of the 78 studies reported a beneficial intervention effect for reduction of child ETS exposure, 24 of which were statistically significant. Of these 24 studies, 13 used objective measures of children's ETS exposure. We were unable to pinpoint what made these programmes effective. Studies showing a significant effect used a range of interventions: nine used in-person counselling or motivational interviewing; another study used telephone counselling, and one used a combination of in-person and telephone counselling; three used multi-component counselling-based interventions; two used multi-component education-based interventions; one used a school-based strategy; four used educational interventions, including one that used picture books; one used a smoking cessation intervention; one used a brief intervention; and another did not describe the intervention. Of the 52 studies that did not show a significant reduction in child ETS exposure, 19 used more intensive counselling approaches, including motivational interviewing, education, coaching, and smoking cessation brief advice. Other interventions consisted of brief advice or counselling (10 studies), feedback of a biological measure of children's ETS exposure (six studies), nicotine replacement therapy (two studies), feedback of maternal cotinine (one study), computerised risk assessment (one study), telephone smoking cessation support (two studies), educational home visits (eight studies), group sessions (one study), educational materials (three studies), and school-based policy and health promotion (one study). Some studies employed more than one intervention. 35 of the 78 studies reported a reduction in ETS exposure for children, irrespective of assignment to intervention and comparison groups. One study did not aim to reduce children's tobacco smoke exposure but rather sought to reduce symptoms of asthma, and found a significant reduction in symptoms among the group exposed to motivational interviewing. We found little evidence of difference in effectiveness of interventions between the well infant, child respiratory illness, and other child illness settings as contexts for parental smoking cessation interventions. A minority of interventions have been shown to reduce children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and improve children's health, but the features that differentiate the effective interventions from those without clear evidence of effectiveness remain unclear. The evidence was judged to be of low or very low quality, as many of the trials are at a high risk of bias, are small and inadequately powered, with heterogeneous interventions and populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 611 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 607 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 86 14%
Researcher 68 11%
Student > Bachelor 57 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 9%
Other 31 5%
Other 113 18%
Unknown 200 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 133 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 92 15%
Psychology 52 9%
Social Sciences 36 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 1%
Other 66 11%
Unknown 224 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,846,066
of 22,511,659 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,127
of 12,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,008
of 406,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,511,659 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 406,237 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 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 51% of its contemporaries.