Trial reportBritish journal of health psychology2025
Investigating attitudes and framing moral responsibility in healthcare professionals for smoking cessation interventions.
Trial report in British journal of health psychology, 2025. 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.
- Investigating attitudes and framing moral responsibility in healthcare professionals for smoking cessation interventions.British journal of health psychology · 2025Trial
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvidence-based support from healthcare professionals improves smoking cessation outcomes, yet intervention rates among UK general practitioners (GPs) remain suboptimal. This exploratory study explored whether framing messages around moral responsibility influences clinicians' intentions to offer smoking cessation support and explored their attitudes towards smoking.
designA between-subjects online experiment was conducted in May 2023 with 300 UK-based GPs and medical students.
methodsParticipants were randomised to one of three message conditions: professional obligation, shared responsibility, or neutral control. They rated their desire, duty, and intention to offer cessation support across clinical scenarios and completed attitude measures.
resultsCompared with control, professional obligation framing was associated with higher intention scores (β = .20, 95% CI [.01, .39]); shared responsibility showed no effect. Subgroup analyses suggested stronger effects among medical students. Contextual factors were influential: higher scores were observed for cardiovascular disease (β = .80) and bipolar disorder (β = .21), while time pressure and patient disinterest reduced intention (β = -.15 and -.14). Attitudes were mixed: 70% viewed smoking as a lifestyle choice, while 88% agreed addiction is a disease.
conclusionsProfessional obligation framing was associated with clinicians' intentions to offer cessation support, particularly among early-career clinicians. Attitudinal inconsistencies highlight a disconnect between clinicians' perceptions and public health guidance. Responsibility-based messaging may be promising for education and training. Given single-item outcomes and the exploratory design, findings should be interpreted cautiously and future work should examine measurement properties more rigorously.
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.