Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26340346›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Intervention for Smokers through New Communication Technologies: What Perceptions Do Patients and Healthcare Professionals Have? A Qualitative Study.

Jose Manuel Trujillo Gómez, Laura Díaz-Gete, Carlos Martín-Cantera, Mireia Fábregas Escurriola, Maribel Lozano Moreno, Raquel Burón Leandro, Ana María Gomez Quintero, Jose Luis Ballve, María Lourdes Clemente Jiménez, Elisa Puigdomènech Puig and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jose Manuel Trujillo GómezCentro de Salud Cuevas del Almanzora, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Almería, Spain; Primary Healthcare University Research Institute IDIAP Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain.
Laura Díaz-GeteCentre d'Atenció Primaria La Sagrera, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Carlos Martín-CanteraPrimary Healthcare University Research Institute IDIAP Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain; Centre d'Atenció Primaria Passeig de Sant Joan, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Mireia Fábregas EscurriolaCentre d'Atenció Primària La Marina, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Maribel Lozano MorenoCentre d'Atenció Primaria Passeig de Sant Joan, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Raquel Burón LeandroCentre d'Atenció Primaria Turo, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Ana María Gomez QuinteroCentre d'Atenció Primaria Turo, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Jose Luis BallveCentre d'Atenció Primària Florida Nord, Institut Català de la Salut, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain.
María Lourdes Clemente JiménezCentro de Salud Santo Grial, Servicio Aragonés de Salud, Huesca, Spain.
Elisa Puigdomènech PuigPrimary Healthcare University Research Institute IDIAP Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain.
Ramón Casas MoreCentre d'Atenció Primaria Sant Antoni, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Beatriz Garcia RuedaCentre d'Atenció Primaria Goretti Badia, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Marc CasajuanaPrimary Healthcare University Research Institute IDIAP Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain.
Marga Méndez-AguirreCentre d'Atenció Primaria Vallcarca-Sant Gervasi, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
David Garcia BoniasCentre d'Atenció Primaria Vallcarca-Sant Gervasi, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Soraya Fernández MaestreCentre d'Atenció Primaria La Sagrera, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Jessica Sánchez FondevilaPrimary Healthcare University Research Institute IDIAP Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain.
Institut Català de la Salut · ESInstitut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol · ESAndalusian Health Service · ESServicio Aragonés de Salud · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the health service is increasing. In spite of limitations, such as lack of time and experience, the deployment of ICTs in the healthcare system has advantages which include patient satisfaction with secure messaging, and time saving benefits and utility for patients and health professionals. ICTs may be helpful as either interventions on their own or as complementary tools to help patients stop smoking.

objectivesTo gather opinions from both medical professionals and smokers about an email-based application that had been designed by our research group to help smoking cessation, and identify the advantages and disadvantages associated with interventions based on the utilization of ICTs for this purpose.

methodsA qualitative, descriptive-interpretative study with a phenomenological perspective was performed to identify and interpret the discourses of the participating smokers and primary healthcare professionals. Data were obtained through two techniques: semi-structured individual interviews and discussion groups, which were recorded and later systematically and literally transcribed together with the interviewer's notes. Data were analyzed with the ATLAS TI 6.0 programme.

resultsSeven individual interviews and four focal groups were conducted. The advantages of the application based on the email intervention designed by our research group were said to be the saving of time in consultations and ease of access for patients who found work timetables and following a programme for smoking cessation incompatible. The disadvantages were thought to be a lack of personal contact with the healthcare professional, and the possibility of cheating/ self-deception, and a greater probability of relapse on the part of the smokers.

conclusionsBoth patients and healthcare professionals viewed the email-based application to help patients stop smoking as a complementary aid to face-to-face consultations. Nevertheless, ICTs could not substitute personal contact in the smoking cessation programme.

Indexed as

AdultElectronic MailFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMedical InformaticsMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchSmokingSmoking CessationSocial PerceptionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26340346
PMCPMC4560416
OpenAlexW2109563044

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.