ArticleBMC public health2014
Perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting in hard-core smokers: a focus group study.
Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling the Long-Term Lung Consequences of Smoking and Tobacco Consumption: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- An exploration of associations between smoking motives and behavior as a function of body mass index.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2021Article
- Impact of tobacco and/or nicotine products on health and functioning: a scoping review and findings from the preparatory phase of the development of a new self-report measure.Harm reduction journal · 2021Article
- Characteristics of Hardcore Male Smokers in Taiwan: A Qualitative Study.Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal · 2020Article
- Male students' experiences on predictors of waterpipe smoking reduction: A qualitative study in Iran.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2019Article
- Experiences of young smokers in quitting smoking in twin cities of Pakistan: a phenomenological study.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Prevalence of hardcore smoking in the Netherlands between 2001 and 2012: a test of the hardening hypothesis.BMC public health · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last decade, so-called hard-core smokers have received increasing interest in research literature. For smokers in general, the study of perceived costs and benefits (or 'pros and cons') of smoking and quitting is of particular importance in predicting motivation to quit and actual quitting attempts. Therefore, this study aims to gain insight into the perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting in hard-core smokers.
methodsWe conducted 11 focus group interviews among current hard-core smokers (n = 32) and former hard-core smokers (n = 31) in the Netherlands. Subsequently, each participant listed his or her main pros and cons in a questionnaire. We used a structural procedure to analyse the data obtained from the group interviews and from the questionnaires.
resultsUsing the qualitative data of both the questionnaires and the transcripts, the perceived pros and cons of smoking and smoking cessation were grouped into 6 main categories: Finance, Health, Intrapersonal Processes, Social Environment, Physical Environment and Food and Weight.
conclusionsAlthough the perceived pros and cons of smoking in hard-core smokers largely mirror the perceived pros and cons of quitting, there are some major differences with respect to weight, social integration, health of children and stress reduction, that should be taken into account in clinical settings and when developing interventions. Based on these findings we propose the 'Distorted Mirror Hypothesis'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.