Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23575031›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2013

Study protocol for iQuit in Practice: a randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of tailored web- and text-based facilitation of smoking cessation in primary care.

Stephen Sutton, Susan Smith, James Jamison, Sue Boase, Dan Mason, A Toby Prevost, James Brimicombe, Melanie Sloan, Hazel Gilbert, Felix Naughton

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Mobile phone messaging for preventive health care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Are Nurses and Auxiliary Healthcare Workers Equally Effective in Delivering Smoking Cessation Support in Primary Care?Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen SuttonBehavioural Science Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, UK. srs34@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Susan Smith
James Jamison
Sue Boase
Dan Mason
A Toby Prevost
James Brimicombe
Melanie Sloan
Hazel Gilbert
Felix Naughton
University of Cambridge · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care is an important setting for smoking cessation interventions. There is evidence for the effectiveness of tailored interventions for smoking cessation, and text messaging interventions for smoking cessation show promise. The intervention to be evaluated in this trial consists of two components: (1) a web-based program designed to be used by a practice nurse or other smoking cessation advisor (SCA); the program generates a cessation advice report that is highly tailored to relevant characteristics of the smoker; and (2) a three-month programme of automated tailored text messages sent to the smoker's mobile phone. The objectives of the trial are to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and to estimate the short-term effectiveness of the intervention in increasing the quit rate compared with usual care alone. METHODS/

designThe design is a two parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT). 600 smokers who want to quit will be recruited in up to 30 general practices in the East of England. During a consultation with an SCA, they will be individually randomised by computer program to usual care (Control) or to usual care plus the iQuit system (Intervention). At the four-week follow-up appointment, the SCA will record smoking status and measure carbon monoxide level. There will be two further follow-ups, at eight weeks and six months from randomisation date, by postal questionnaire sent from and returned to the study centre or by telephone interview conducted by a research interviewer. The primary outcome will be self-reported abstinence for at least two weeks at eight weeks. A sample size of 300 per group would give 80% power to detect an increase in quit rate from 20% to 30% (alpha = 0.05, 2-sided test). The main analyses of quit rates will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, making the usual assumption that participants lost to follow up are smoking. DISCUSSION: This trial will focus on acceptability, feasibility and short-term effectiveness. The findings will be used to refine the intervention and to inform the decision to proceed to a pragmatic trial to estimate longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

trial registrationISRCTN56702353.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedClinical ProtocolsEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareSmoking CessationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID23575031
PMCPMC3641973
OpenAlexW1964850005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.