ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2018
Ups and downs of a peer-based smoking cessation intervention help tailored to hospital-employees with low socioeconomic status: The RESPEKT Study.
Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSmoking is one of the most important determinants of socioeconomic inequality in mortality. Few studies have tested which interventions are effective in smokers with low socioeconomic status (SES).
methodsAll hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark were included and randomized to intervention or control groups. The target-group was smokers with low SES. Intervention hospitals: smokers in the target-group assisted researchers to tailor a group-based smoking cessation intervention. Further they helped recruiting smoking colleagues and motivating them to stay abstinent. Control hospitals: 'as usual'. Unforeseen organizational challenges led to a change of study design; the hospital-level assessment was reduced to two cross-sectional surveys.
resultsResponse rates in hospitals' smoking status survey were very low. Smoking status was reported by 1876 out of 7003 employees at baseline and 2280 out of 7496 employees at 1-year follow-up. Two cross-sectional surveys showed no significant difference in self-reported smoking at 1-year follow-up between intervention and control hospitals (p=0.262). We recruited 100 smokers in the group-based smoking cessation intervention tailored to smokers with low SES (corresponding to approx. 10% of smokers in target-group); 32.4% of these were validated as continuously abstinent at 6 months follow-up.
conclusionsInvolving smokers with low SES as partners at an early stage of study design facilitated both recruitment and development of the intervention. Despite high validated long-term abstinence rates in smoking cessation groups in the intervention hospitals we found no apparent effect of the intervention at hospital-level after one year. However, larger involvement of the target-group seems feasible and is recommended.
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.