↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
Title
Smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009704.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Priya Khanna, Andrew V Clifton, David Banks, Graeme E Tosh

Abstract

People with a serious mental illness are more likely to smoke more and to be more dependent smokers than the general population. This may be due to a wide range of factors that could include a common aetiology to both smoking and the illness, self medication, smoking to alleviate adverse effects of medications, boredom in the existing environment, or a combination of these factors. It is important to undertake this review to facilitate improvements in both the health and safety of people with serious mental illness who smoke, and to reduce the overall burden of costs (both financial and health) to the smoker and, eventually, to the taxpayer. To review the effects of smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialized Trials Register up to 2 April 2015, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and trial registries. We also undertook unsystematic searches of a sample of the component databases (BNI, CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO), up to 2 April 2015, and searched references of all identified studies SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that focussed on smoking cessation advice versus standard care or comparing smoking cessation advice with other more focussed methods of delivering care or information. The review authors (PK, AC, and DB) independently screened search results but did not identify any trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. We did not identify any RCTs that evaluated advice regarding smoking cessation for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to smokers with serious mental illness is possible. People with serious mental illness are more likely to smoke than the general population. Yet we could not find any high quality evidence to guide the smoking cessation advice healthcare professionals pass onto service users. This is an area where trials are possible and needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 210 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 68 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 15%
Psychology 20 10%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 75 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,091,476
of 20,416,887 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,226
of 12,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,757
of 367,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#137
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,416,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 367,175 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 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.