The DOI matches its Crossref record; 228 of the 228 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceived barriers to smoking cessation in selected vulnerable groups: a systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative literature
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To identify barriers that are common and unique to six selected vulnerable groups: low socioeconomic status; Indigenous; mental illness and substance abuse; homeless; prisoners; and at-risk youth. Design: A systematic review was carried out to identify the perceived barriers to smoking cessation within six vulnerable groups. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched using keywords and MeSH terms from each database's inception published prior to March 2014. Study selection: Studies that provided either qualitative or quantitative (ie, longitudinal, cross-sectional or cohort surveys) descriptions of self-reported perceived barriers to quitting smoking in one of the six aforementioned vulnerable groups were included. Data extraction: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Results: 65 eligible papers were identified: 24 with low socioeconomic groups, 16 with Indigenous groups, 18 involving people with a mental illness, 3 with homeless groups, 2 involving prisoners and 1 involving at-risk youth. One study identified was carried out with participants who were homeless and addicted to alcohol and/or other drugs. Barriers common to all vulnerable groups included: smoking for stress management, lack of support from health and other service providers, and the high prevalence and acceptability of smoking in vulnerable communities. Unique barriers were identified for people with a mental illness (eg, maintenance of mental health), Indigenous groups (eg, cultural and historical norms), prisoners (eg, living conditions), people who are homeless (eg, competing priorities) and at-risk youth (eg, high accessibility of tobacco). Conclusions: Vulnerable groups experience common barriers to smoking cessation, in addition to barriers that are unique to specific vulnerable groups. Individual-level, community-level and social network-level interventions are priority areas for future smoking cessation interventions within vulnerable groups. Trial registration number: A protocol for this review has been registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Identifier: CRD42013005761).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Interventions for smoking cessation in Indigenous populations
Carson‐Chahhoud, K., Brinn, M. P., Peters, M. J., Veale, A., Esterman, A. J., & Smith, B. J. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009046.pub2 · Cited by 102
RetractedPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,657
Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects
Shenton, A. K. (2004) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-2004-22201 · Cited by 9,748
Social determinants of health inequalities
Marmot, M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)71146-6 · Cited by 5,086
Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ
Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 · Cited by 3,569
Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1): Figure 1
Galobardes, B., Shaw, M., Lawlor, D. A., Lynch, J. W., & Davey Smith, G. (2006) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2004.023531 · Cited by 2,867
Cited by
Breast Cancer, Version 4.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Gradishar, W. J., Anderson, B. O., Balassanian, R., Blair, S. L., Burstein, H. J., Cyr, A., Elias, A. D., Farrar, W. B., Forero, A., Giordano, S. H., et al. (2018) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0012 · Cited by 1,609
Armour, M., Parry, K., Manohar, N., Holmes, K., Ferfolja, T., Curry, C., MacMillan, F., & Smith, C. A. (2019) · Journal of Women's Health · doi:10.1089/jwh.2018.7615 · Cited by 406
Smoking cessation, version 1.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology
Shields, P. G., Herbst, R. S., Arenberg, D., Benowitz, N. L., Bierut, L., Luckart, J. B., Cinciripini, P., Collins, B., David, S., Davis, J., et al. (2016) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2016.0152 · Cited by 146
Kalkhoran, S., Thorndike, A. N., Rigotti, N. A., Fung, V., & Baggett, T. P. (2019) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-019-04857-3 · Cited by 78
Hunt, C. A., Hoffman, M. A., Mohr, J. J., & Williams, A.-L. (2020) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-020-01308-7 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Twyman, L., Bonevski, B., Paul, C., & Bryant, J.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-12
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e006414
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169278781
- Cited by
- 462
- References
- 228
- FWCI
- 3.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perceived barriers to smoking cessation in selected vulnerable groups: a systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006414
- The paper
- Twyman, L., Bonevski, B., Paul, C., & Bryant, J. (2014). Perceived barriers to smoking cessation in selected vulnerable groups: a systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative literature. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006414
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.