↓ Skip to main content

Motivating Smoking Cessation Text Messages: Perspectives from Pregnant Smokers

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal & Child Health Journal, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Motivating Smoking Cessation Text Messages: Perspectives from Pregnant Smokers
Published in
Maternal & Child Health Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10995-018-2452-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer M. Schindler-Ruwisch, Leah E. Leavitt, Laura E. Macherelli, Monique M. Turner, Lorien C. Abroms

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to analyze cessation text-messages written by pregnant smokers to elucidate the target population's preferred content and message attributes. To achieve this goal, the objectives of this study are three-fold; to qualitatively code messages written by pregnant smokers for frame, type of appeal, and intended target. Study participants were recruited as part of a larger trial of pregnant smokers who were enrolled in a text-messaging program or control group and surveyed 1 month post-enrollment. Each participant was asked to write a brief message to another pregnant smoker and two independent coders qualitatively analyzed responses. User generated messages (N = 51) were equally loss and gain framed, and the most common appeals were: fear, guilt, cognitive, hope and empathy, in order of most to least frequent. The target of the majority of the messages was the baby. Allowing pregnant smokers to write cessation text-messages for other pregnant women can provide relevant insight into intervention content. Specifically, pregnant smokers appear to equally promote gain and loss frames, but may prefer messages that include components of fear and guilt related to the impact of smoking on their baby. Additional research is needed to systematically uncover perspectives of pregnant smokers to ensure interventions are optimally effective.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 32%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 20%
Unspecified 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 36%
Unspecified 6 24%
Psychology 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Linguistics 1 4%
Other 3 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#11,451,448
of 12,881,446 outputs
Outputs from Maternal & Child Health Journal
#1,231
of 1,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,468
of 269,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal & Child Health Journal
#33
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,881,446 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.