ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Development and application of culturally appropriate decision aids for smoking cessation in Korea: a pragmatic clustered randomization crossover trial.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Shared Decision-Making in Korean Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Cigarette Smoking in South Korea: A Narrative Review.Korean journal of family medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Asian countries, reluctance to seek pharmacological intervention is a major barrier for smoking cessation. Culturally appropriate decision aids are expected to help people in the decision making for the use of smoking cessation medication.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a culturally tailored decision aid for smoking cessation and evaluate its effect on the use of smoking cessation medication. PATIENTS AND
methodsA 7-minute video on smoking cessation information and options was developed. Physicians were randomized into intervention and control groups. The decision aid was provided to patients in the intervention group, and they watched it, while those in the control group were provided usual medical care for smoking cessation. The primary outcome was the proportion of smokers who were prescribed smoking cessation medication within 1 month after consultation. The secondary outcomes were abstinence rate and use of smoking cessation medication within 6 months. A logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of the decision aid on the outcomes.
resultsIn total, 414 current smokers (intervention group: 195; control group: 219) were enrolled. The mean age of the participants was 48.2 years, and 381 subjects (92%) were males. In total, 11.8% of the participants in the intervention group and 10.5% in the control group were prescribed smoking cessation medications within 1 month. The odds ratio was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.40-2.63) after adjustment for baseline characteristics. Within 6 months, 17.4% of the participants in the intervention group and 15% in the control group were prescribed medication (adjusted odds ratio 1.12, 95% CI: 0.59-2.13).
conclusionThe culturally tailored smoking cessation decision aid developed in this study did not show a significant impact on the decision to use smoking cessation medication. Further research to develop more effective and more interactive interventions is expected.
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.