Reviewer's report
Title:Are quit attempts among U.S. female nurses different from female smokers
in the general population? An analysis of the 2006/2007 Tobacco Use
Supplement to the Current Population Survey
Version: 1Date:5 December 2011
Reviewer: Alicja Sieminska
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s report
The study was carried out to explore smoking and quitting characteristics among
female nurses as compared to women in the general population and correlates of
ever and recent quit attempts among smokers in both groups. The manuscript is
well-written and easy to follow. The methodology of the study is accurate. The
results are discussed against the background of other data coming from the US,
which gives the readers an opportunity to get to know current evidence on the
topic. The conclusions are well justified, although they should be revised a little.
There are several other concerns, minor or discretionary, that should be
addressed in the manuscript prior to it being accepted for publication.
Major concerns
I have none
Minor concerns
1) In the Abstract, in the first sentence referring to results, the assumption that
“Nurses (16.63%) had a lower smoking prevalence than other women (12.09%)”
is false. The rate 16.63% is not lower than the rate 12.09%. I suppose it is an
editing error.
2) One of the demographic variables of the studied populations of women was
the location, where the study was conducted. It was divided into specific regions:
Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. For readers who come from somewhere
other than the US it may be not clear which specific characteristics of these
regions justify such a division. Was it done because of socioeconomic or cultural
differences between them which might influence the prevalence of smoking and
quitting among nurses? It could be mentioned for example in the Methods or the
Discussion section.
3) I propose revising the Conclusions section. In my opinion, conclusions should
only recapitulate the main findings of the study rather than comment on them,
which is, in turn, preferable in the Discussion. For instance, the sentence:
“Although the relatively low prevalence of smoking among nurses is encouraging,
it remains much higher than the estimated 2% of physician smokers [25]” is
better suited to the Discussion. As a conclusion it is enough to state that: “The
prevalence of smoking nurses is relatively low in comparison to the general
population of women”. Similarly, the sentences: “Unlike other female professions,
the negative impact of smoking on the health of nurses has been well established
[8]”, “Evidence suggests that worksite smoking bans may encourage further quit
attempts [36]”, and “As more and more medical campuses become smoke free,
this may accelerate quit efforts of all healthcare professionals [37, 38]” should be
placed in the Discussion section. These sentences describe findings of other
studies rather than reflect conclusions resulting from the presented study.
Discretionary concerns
1) In Table 1 there is a typing error: the rate of female nurses who ever made a
quit attempt should be 43.18% not 43.185. Although, on the other hand, any “%“
sign should be placed in this Table as has been done in Table 2. Column labels
specify percentages as units of the values showed in the tables, and there is no
need to repeat them inside the columns.
2) The abbreviation SE used in tables should be explained in the footnote of the
tables.
3) The second sentence before the Conclusion section “Additionally, we do not
have information body weight” should be revised (“on” or “about” should be
added before “body weight”)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.