smoking cessation among low-socioeconomic status and disadvantaged population groups: a systematic review of research output

Clicks: 544
ID: 248295
2015
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #4 of 642 articles by views in archives of biochemistry and biophysics

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 642 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background: Smoking cessation research output should move beyond descriptive research of the health problem to testing interventions that can provide causal data and effective evidence-based solutions. This review examined the number and type of published smoking cessation studies conducted in low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) and disadvantaged population groups. Methods: A systematic database search was conducted for two time periods: 2000–2004 (TP1) and 2008–2012 (TP2). Publications that examined smoking cessation in a low-SES or disadvantaged population were coded by: population of interest; study type (reviews, non-data based publications, data-based publications (descriptive, measurement and intervention research)); and country. Intervention studies were coded in accordance with the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care data collection checklist and use of biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence was assessed. Results: 278 citations were included. Research output (i.e., all study types) had increased from TP1 27% to TP2 73% (χ² = 73.13, p < 0.001), however, the proportion of data-based research had not significantly increased from TP1 and TP2: descriptive (TP1 = 23% vs. TP2 = 33%) or intervention (TP1 = 77% vs. TP2 = 67%). The proportion of intervention studies adopting biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence had significantly decreased from TP1 to TP2 with an increased reliance on self-reported abstinence (TP1 = 12% vs. TP2 = 36%). Conclusions: The current research output is not ideal or optimal to decrease smoking rates. Research institutions, scholars and funding organisations should take heed to review findings when developing future research and policy.
Reference Key
courtney2015internationalsmoking Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Ryan J. Courtney;Sundresan Naicker;Anthony Shakeshaft;Philip Clare;Kristy A. Martire;Richard P. Mattick
Journal archives of biochemistry and biophysics
Year 2015
DOI
10.3390/ijerph120606403
URL
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/6/6403
Keywords
poverty socio-economic factors intervention review social class mental disorders smoking cessation indigenous population homeless persons

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.