Talk:Smoking cessation

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Themis.Wilson (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Palazmil, Christinacarnagie, Nursingstudent567 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jordyn lewis, Ahige, Oconnorg, Cronkam, MaddyEngelsma, Kellyalex. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yeeeshanb (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chrliao, Mwade94, Jwei3 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Januvia Nguyen, Kwokt.

CP133 2019 Group 3 proposed edits

Jason: Under “Methods” -> “Medications” -> “Nicotine Replacement Therapy”, we would like to replace the word “nicotine spray” with “nicotine nasal and oral spray” instead, so that people will be more informed regarding the drug delivery method being used. The citation will remain the same as the source also mentioned about both oral and nasal spray formulations. Source is its current one at [25]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6353172/ Jwei3 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Carmen: Under the section: “Substitutes for Cigarettes”, the wikipedia article makes the claim at the end of the first bullet point that NRT success rates are “evidently low; an estimate of 6.8% for patches and 7.9% for gums” and cited citation 115 which leads to what has been flagged as an “unreliable medical source”. I agree with this flag since it sites a website called “quitwithnerd” rather than published literature. I suggest remove this sentence and replacing it with the information from the source (below) stating that NRTs actually increase the rate of qutiting by 50-60%. This source comes from a published paper that compiled data from 136 studies gathered from the Cochrane TObacco Addiction Group trials. Source includes: doi: 10.1002/14651858 Cleung160 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Miranda: Under the section: Medications, when talking about the different types of NRTs it mentions the nicotine gum, inhaler, spray, etc and only lists local skin irritation and rarely non-ischemic chest pain as the only known side effects. This is untrue, as there are a number of different side effects specific to each formulation. For gum, one of the main side effects are mouth soreness and dyspepsia, the lozenge can cause nausea or heartburn, the patch can cause insomnia, and sleep disturbances in addition to a local skin reaction. The spray and the inhaler both cause local irritation Sources include: PMC 4465757. PMID 18617085. (2) doi:10.3322/canjclin.55.5.281. ISSN 0007-9235. PMID 16166074. Mwade94 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Christina: Section: Pregnant women, It’s mentioned that smoking during pregnancy may lead to pre-term babies that are underdeveloped, have weaker immune systems, and may become smokers later in life. We would like to add that it due to underdevelopment and weaker immune systems, these children may later develop metabolic conditions such as diabetes, kidney diseases, and hypertension [1]. Additionally, smoking during pregnancy increases the chance of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID). According to a study published by American Academy of Pediatrics, the odds ratio of SUID ([aOR] = 2.44) doubled with maternal smoking compared to non smokers (aOR = 0.77) [2]. Sources include: 1. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10126485 and 2. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2018-3325 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwei3 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Chrliao (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Within the year before they were surveyed in 2010, 52.4% of adult smokers had made an attempt to quit smoking. Overall, 68.8% want to stop.

According to a large survey of Americans in 2010,

"... 68.8% of adult smokers wanted to stop smoking, 52.4% had made a quit attempt in the past year ...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6044a2.htm?s_cid=mm6044a2_w

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) November 11, 2011 / Vol. 60 / No. 44

Quitting Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2001–2010

The above-cited survey report by the CDC tracks many interesting statistics germane to this article.

Dead Reference

Citation 108, attributable to:'Ossip-Klein DJ, McIntosh S, Utman C, Burton K, Spada J, Guido J (2000). "Smokers ages 50+: who gets physician advice to quit?" (PDF). Prev Med. 31 (4): 364–9. doi:10.1006/pmed.2000.0721. PMID 11006061.[permanent dead link]' is no longer accessible through the following web-link: http://cvhpinstitute.org/hls396/pdf/Smokers%2050+.pdf.

I am proposing a functioning link source for the cited research. It can be found here in .pdf format, https://themarijuanafacts.com/smokers-ages-50-who-gets-physician-advice-to-quit/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph.Berlingieri (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2019

This author (myself) has been renamed due to too many other authors with the same name, and the book has been rebranded - the inside is virtually unchanged

change ... Jason Wright (2013). Knowing How To Quit Smoking. 1. p. 38. ISBN 978-1494238452. to ... Jason Blackwolf (2013). Fag Off!. 1. p. 38. ISBN 978-1695873896 ICaveBear (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Would have needed some sort of proof for this, though I can't see how the original book was notable enough to be suggested in Further Reading in the first place so have removed it. Cannolis (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

CP133 Group 2 Peer Reviews

Jimmy's Response: I believe that group 3 made reasonable contributions One of the value propositions of group 3 was that their edits improved clarity and succinctness of the syntax/nomenclature used in Nicotine Replacement Therapy. Because this is a clinical topic, it is important to use laymen's terms and cite the sources, which they correctly did. They also included data points from several sources about NRTs, which adds to the credibility. In all, I believe that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement based on their Wikipedia edits, citations, and choice of syntax/diction. I especially commend Christina for her section that included an odds ratio and citation in order to provide quantifiable data sources for the readers.

• Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? Upon inspection, there is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Each data point was correctly cited with the link to the study or name of the author. It was written from a neutral, objective point of view with a very professional style. Januvia Nguyen (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)jimmy

Kaycee's Response: I think that the contributions made by Group 3’s members do improve the Wikipedia article. They added information such as important side effect information and special population considerations/warnings which are well supported from the resources the cited. They also did well with adding better sources to other editor’s comments making their work more valid compared to other less valid sources that were cited previously. I do believe that they met there proposed overall goals and executed them well.

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify - In regards to one of Chrliao's sources for an edit she made adding in pregnancy information, although it was a good source, it is actually a primary resource article: "Maternal Smoking Before and During Pregnancy and the Risk of Sudden Unexpected Infant Death". However after asking other people outside of pharmacy school if they could look up the source, it seems like it is still accessible by the public so I believe it is still a good source that can be used. It may be good to also find a secondary source to cite as well to help meet wikipedia's citing requirements. Ksangustinnordmeier (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe this group's edits improve the article as described by Wikipedia's peer review "Guiding framework". It provided depth to the existing sections, such as the addition of citations from review articles that examined a large number of studies and elucidation of the effects that nicotine therapy may have on pregnancy and infants. Another thing they did well was adding the side effects to various NRTs along with the appropriate citation. All of the goals set by the group were accomplished in their edits. Their edits thus far reflect a neutral point of view. I was impressed by the removal of information from sources that were perhaps less credible and not neutral, as evidenced by Carmen's edit. There was no opinions or overstatement of facts in their edits. Kwokt (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ai's response: I believe that group 3 made some good edits that improve the quality of the article’s content. Specifically, Carmen pointed out the unreliable source and replaced it with the information from a more reliable published paper. I’m also impressed by how Miranda’s edits provide more insights in side effects of different formulations. This information will help the patients to notice the side effects easier and have appropriate modifications to their treatment. Christina also made a great discussion about the consequences of smoking mothers on the development of babies. Overall, I think their edits are presented in clear structure with neutral content, and all are cited from reliable sources. With that being said, Group 3 has achieved its goals for improvement. Aivu93 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)