Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31810493›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

Associations between school-based peer networks and smoking according to socioeconomic status and tobacco control context: protocol for a mixed method systematic review.

H J Littlecott, J Hawkins, M Mann, G J Melendez-Torres, F Dobbie, G Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

H J LittlecottCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK. LittlecottH@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6391-9757
J HawkinsCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK.
M MannSpecialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE), Cardiff University, Level 5, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK.
G J Melendez-TorresPeninsula Technology Assessment Group, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
F DobbieUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
G MooreCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK.

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UK 26532Cancer Research UK C64562/A26532Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking remains a major public health concern. School-based social networks influence uptake of smoking among peers. During the past two decades, the UK macro-systemic context within which schools are nested and interact with has changed, with anti-smoking norms having become set at a more macro-systemic level. Whilst the overall prevalence of smoking in the UK has decreased, inequality has prevailed. It is plausible that the influence of school-based social networks on smoking uptake may vary according to socioeconomic status. Therefore, this study aims to understand how social influence on smoking among adolescents has changed in line with variance within and between contexts according to time and geography.

methodsThe following databases will be searched: Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), British Education Index, Sociological abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Scopus. Additional searches will include reference checking of key papers, citation tracking, word of mouth and grey literature searches. The search strategies will incorporate terms relating to smoking, adolescents, schools, peers, network analysis and qualitative research. Titles and abstracts and full texts will be independently screened and assessed for quality by at least two researchers. Included studies will be assessed for quality, and data will be extracted for synthesis, including participant characteristics, setting and tobacco control context, study design and methods, analysis and results and conclusions. Quantitative findings will be narratively synthesised, whilst a lines of argument synthesis combined with refutational analysis will be employed to synthesise qualitative data. Both sets of findings will be charted on a timeline to add context to network findings and obtain an enhanced understanding of changes over time. DISCUSSION: This protocol is for a mixed methods synthesis of both social network findings, to investigate social structures and qualitative studies, to elicit contextual information. The review will synthesise changes in the context of social influence on adolescent smoking over time and geographically. As context is increasingly recognised as a key source of complexity, this enhanced understanding will help to inform future interventions targeting smoking through social influence. This will help to enhance their relevance to context, subsequent effectiveness and targeting of inequalities. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019137358.

Indexed as

Research DesignSmoking PreventionSocial NetworkingSystematic Reviews as TopicAdolescentHumansPeer InfluenceSchoolsSmokingSocial ClassUnited KingdomFriendshipMixed methodPeer effectsSmokingSocial influenceSocial network

Identifiers

PMID31810493
PMCPMC6896310

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.