↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Systematic review and meta-analysis of Internet interventions for smoking cessation among adults

Overview of attention for article published in Substance abuse and rehabilitation, May 2016
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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review and meta-analysis of Internet interventions for smoking cessation among adults
Published in
Substance abuse and rehabilitation, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/sar.s101660
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda L Graham, Kelly M Carpenter, Sarah Cha, Sam Cole, Megan A Jacobs, Margaret Raskob, Heather Cole-Lewis

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of Internet interventions in promoting smoking cessation among adult tobacco users relative to other forms of intervention recommended in treatment guidelines. This review followed Cochrane Collaboration guidelines for systematic reviews. Combinations of "Internet," "web-based," and "smoking cessation intervention" and related keywords were used in both automated and manual searches. We included randomized trials published from January 1990 through to April 2015. A modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for each study. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects method to pool RRs. Presentation of results follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Forty randomized trials involving 98,530 participants were included. Most trials had a low risk of bias in most domains. Pooled results comparing Internet interventions to assessment-only/waitlist control were significant (RR 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-2.21, I (2)=51.7%; four studies). Pooled results of largely static Internet interventions compared to print materials were not significant (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63-1.10, I (2)=0%; two studies), whereas comparisons of interactive Internet interventions to print materials were significant (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.25-3.52, I (2)=41.6%; two studies). No significant effects were observed in pooled results of Internet interventions compared to face-to-face counseling (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.97-1.87, I (2)=0%; four studies) or to telephone counseling (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.13, I (2)=0%; two studies). The majority of trials compared different Internet interventions; pooled results from 15 such trials (24 comparisons) found a significant effect in favor of experimental Internet interventions (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31, I (2)=76.7%). Internet interventions are superior to other broad reach cessation interventions (ie, print materials), equivalent to other currently recommended treatment modes (telephone and in-person counseling), and they have an important role to play in the arsenal of tobacco-dependence treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 37 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,171,634
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Substance abuse and rehabilitation
#53
of 125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,800
of 312,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Substance abuse and rehabilitation
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 125 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 312,290 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.