Cited by 75Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

Gender Differences among Smokers and Quitters in the Working Well Trial

Gritz, Ellen R., Thompson, Beti, Emmons, Karen, Ockene, Judith K., McLerran, Dale F., Nielsen, Ingrid R.·1998·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background Gender differences in smoking and smoking cessation among participants in the Working Well Trial are characterized.Methods A prospective randomized matched-pair evaluation was conducted among 90 predominantly blue-collar worksites. Cross-sectional surveys of employees' tobacco use behaviors were conducted at baseline and after a 2.5-year smoking cessation intervention. Respondents included 5,523 females and 12,313 males at baseline and 4,663 females and 10,919 males at follow-up. The main outcome measures included self-reported continuous smoking abstinence rates for 7 days and for 6 months.Results Smoking prevalence was significantly higher for women than for men at baseline, but not at follow-up. Variables believed to influence smoking cessation were compared at baseline. Significant gender differences were found for number of cigarettes smoked/day, number of previous quit attempts, job strain, stage of change, and behavioral processes of change. At follow-up, no gender differences in quit rates were observed; however, women in the intervention condition were more likely to quit than women in the control condition, whereas no differences were seen among men by treatment condition.Conclusions Gender is not a strong predictor of smoking cessation in this population; however, women were more likely to quit with an intervention than without one.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/pmed.1998.0325

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gritz, E. R., Thompson, B., Emmons, K., Ockene, J. K., McLerran, D. F., & Nielsen, I. R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Gritz, Ellen R.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-07
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
553-561
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010128583
Cited by
75
References
47
Citations by year
2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship@UMassChan (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01ca051686-06, 5u01ca051687-05, 5u01ca051671-05)
  • National Cancer Institute (U01 CA51686, U01 CA51687, U01 CA51671)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Keywords
gender differences, smoking cessation, smoking abstinence, tobacco use, smoking prevalence, smoking cessation interventions, blue-collar workers, job strain, stages of change, workplace health promotion
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Gender Identity, Health Promotion, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Treatment Outcome, Workplace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review