Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19299409›Full record

Trial reportNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2009

Immediate and short-term impact of a brief motivational smoking intervention using a biomedical risk assessment: the Get PHIT trial.

Jennifer B McClure, Evette Ludman, Lou Grothaus, Chester Pabiniak, Julie Richards, Amy Mohelnitzky

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. COach2Quit: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Personal Carbon Monoxide Monitor for Smoking Cessation.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer B McClureGroup Health Center for Health Studies, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA. mcclure.j@ghc.org
Evette Ludman
Lou Grothaus
Chester Pabiniak
Julie Richards
Amy Mohelnitzky
Health Center · US

Funding

Proactive Cessation Intervention with Biomarker FeedbackR01CA100341 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MCCLURE, JENNIFER B · 2004 to 2008
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS CA100341NCI NIH HHS R01 CA100341
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionProviding smokers with biologically based evidence of smoking-related disease risk or physical impairment may be an effective way to motivate cessation.

methodsSmokers were recruited for a free health risk assessment and randomized to receive personally tailored feedback based on their lung functioning, carbon monoxide (CO) exposure, and smoking-related health conditions or generic information about the risks of smoking and personalized counseling based on their diet, body mass index, and physical activity. All (n = 536) were advised to quit smoking and offered access to a free telephone cessation program. Participants were surveyed immediately after intervention and 1 month later to assess the impact on various indices of motivation to quit.

resultsImmediately posttreatment, experimental participants rated themselves as more likely to try to quit (p = .02) and reported a greater mean increase in their motivation to quit than controls (p = .04). At 1-month follow-up, however, we found no significant group differences on any motivational indices. In post-hoc analyses comparing smokers in the experimental group with and without lung impairment, persons with impaired lung functioning had a greater change from baseline in posttreatment motivation to quit (adjusted p = .05) and perceived risk of developing a smoking-related disease (p = .03) compared with persons with no lung impairment, but we found no significant treatment effect on any motivational indices at 1 month. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that the intervention had a small, temporary effect, but we found no clear evidence that the intervention increased motivation to quit smoking during the first month postintervention.

Indexed as

MotivationCarbon MonoxideFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationRespiratory Function TestsRisk AssessmentSmoking CessationCarbon Monoxide

Identifiers

PMID19299409
PMCPMC2670368
OpenAlexW2059940333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.