ArticleAustralian and New Zealand journal of public health2015
Quitting activity and tobacco brand switching: findings from the ITC-4 Country Survey.
Article in Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cigarette brand loyalty among smokers in six European countries: Findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys.Tobacco induced diseases · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAmong Australian smokers, to examine associations between cigarette brand switching, quitting activity and possible causal directions by lagging the relationships in different directions.
methodsCurrent smokers from nine waves (2002 to early 2012) of the ITC-4 Country Survey Australian dataset were surveyed. Measures were brand switching, both brand family and product type (roll-your-own versus factory-made cigarettes) reported in adjacent waves, interest in quitting, recent quit attempts, and one month sustained abstinence.
resultsSwitching at one interval was unrelated to concurrent quit interest. Quit interest predicted switching at the following interval, but the effect disappeared once subsequent quit attempts were controlled for. Recent quit attempts more strongly predicted switching at concurrent (OR 1.34, 95%CI=1.18-1.52, p<0.001) and subsequent intervals (OR 1.31, 95%CI=1.12-1.53, p=0.001) than switching predicted quit attempts, with greater asymmetry when both types of switching were combined. One month sustained abstinence and switching were unrelated in the same interval; however, after controlling for concurrent switching and excluding type switchers, sustained abstinence predicted lower chance of switching at the following interval (OR=0.66, 95%CI=0.47-0.93, p=0.016).
conclusionsThe asymmetry suggests brand switching does not affect subsequent quitting. IMPLICATIONS: Brand switching does not appear to interfere with quitting.
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.