ORCID Profile
0000-0002-0946-742X
Current Organisation
University of Oxford
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2014
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 08-03-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2014
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 19-03-2018
DOI: 10.1093/IJE/DYY016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 12-2016
DOI: 10.1037/ADB0000231
Abstract: Previous laboratory studies have investigated associations between attentional bias and craving, but ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may provide ecologically-valid data. This study examines whether clinic-measured attentional bias is associated with noticing smoking cues, attention to smoking, and craving assessed by EMA and whether EMA-assessed cues and attention to smoking are associated with craving in a secondary analysis of data from 100 cigarette smokers attempting cessation. Two weeks before quitting, participants completed attentional bias assessments on visual probe (VP) and Stroop tasks and completed random EMA-assessments for seven weeks thereafter. Participants completed 9,271 random assessments, averaging 3.3 prompts/day. Clinic-measured attentional bias was not associated with cues seen (VP: OR = 1.00, 95% CI = [0.99, 1.01] Stroop: OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.00]), attention toward smoking (VP: OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02] Stroop: OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.00]), or craving (VP: OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02] Stroop: OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.01]). EMA responses to seeing a smoking cue (OR = 1.94, 95% CI [1.74, 2.16]) and attention toward smoking (OR = 3.69, 95% CI [3.42, 3.98]) were associated with craving. Internal reliability was higher for the Stroop (α = .75) than visual probe task (α = .20). In smokers attempting cessation, clinic measures of attentional bias do not predict noticing smoking cues, focus on smoking, or craving. However, associations exist between noticing smoking cues, attention toward smoking, and craving assessed in the moment, suggesting that attentional bias may not be a stable trait. (PsycINFO Database Record
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 23-04-2019
DOI: 10.1093/NDT/GFZ059
Abstract: Several studies have investigated the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes less is known about its effect on chronic kidney disease (CKD). We aimed to measure the association between deprivation, CKD Stages 4–5 and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in a general population s le. This observational study examined 1 405 016 participants from the English Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2000–14), linked to hospital discharge data and death certification. Deprivation was assessed according to the participant’s postcode. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for CKD Stages 4–5 and ESRD, adjusting for age and sex, and additionally for smoking status, body mass index, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, prior CVD and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at baseline. During 7.5 years of median follow-up, 11 490 in iduals developed CKD Stages 4–5 and 1068 initiated ESRD. After adjustment for age and sex, the HRs and confidence interval (CI) comparing those in the 20% most deprived of the population to the 20% least deprived were 1.76 (95% CI 1.68–1.84) and 1.82 (95% CI 1.56–2.12) for CKD Stages 4–5 and ESRD, respectively. Further adjustment for known risk factors and eGFR substantially attenuated these HRs. Adding our results to all known cohort studies produced a pooled relative risk of 1.61 (95% CI 1.42–1.83) for ESRD, for comparisons between highest to lowest categories of deprivation. Socioeconomic deprivation is independently associated with an increased hazard of CKD Stages 4–5 and ESRD, but in large part may be mediated by known risk factors.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Margaret Smith.