Dataset Information

Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Smartphone applications (apps) offer a potentially cost-effective and a wide-reach aid to smoking cessation. In 2012, a content analysis of smoking cessation apps suggested that most apps did not adopt behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which according to previous research had suggested would promote higher success rates in quitting smoking. This study examined whether or not, this situation had changed by 2014 for free smoking cessation apps available in the Apple App Store. It also compared the use of engagement and ease-of-use features between the two time points.

Methods

137 free apps available in the Apple App Sore in 2014 were coded using an established framework for the presence or absence of evidence-based BCTs, and engagement and ease-of-use features. The results from the 2014 data were compared with a similar exercise conducted on 83 free apps available in 2012.

Results

BCTs supporting identity change, rewarding abstinence and advising on changing routines were less prevalent in 2014 as compared with 2012 (14.6% vs. 42.2%, 18.2% vs. 48.2%, and 17.5% vs. 24.1%, respectively). Advice on coping with cravings and advice on the use of stop-smoking medication were more prevalent in 2014 as compared with 2012 (27.7% vs. 20.5% and 14.6% vs 3.6%, respectively). The use of recognised engagement features was less common in 2014 than in 2012 (45.3% vs. 69.6%) while ease-of-use features remained very high (94.5% vs. 82.6%).

Conclusion

There was little evidence of improvement in the use of evidence-based BCTs in free smoking cessation iPhone-based apps between 2012 and 2014.

SUBMITTER: Ubhi HK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4821061 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014.

Ubhi Harveen Kaur HK Kotz Daniel D Michie Susan S van Schayck Onno C P OC Sheard David D Selladurai Abiram A West Robert R

Addictive behaviors 20160218

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Smartphone applications (apps) offer a potentially cost-effective and a wide-reach aid to smoking cessation. In 2012, a content analysis of smoking cessation apps suggested that most apps did not adopt behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which according to previous research had suggested would promote higher success rates in quitting smoking. This study examined whether or not, this situation had changed by 2014 for free smoking cessation apps available in the Apple A ...[more]

PMID: 26950256

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSmoking is a leading cause of premature death globally. Smartphone applications for smoking cessation are ubiquitous and address barriers to accessing traditional treatments, yet there is limited evidence for their efficacy.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of a smartphone application for smoking cessation based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs a National Cancer Institute smoking cessation application based on US clinical practice guidelines (USCPG).Design, setting, and participantsA 2-group, stratified, double-blind, individually randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 27, 2017, to September 28, 2018, among 2415 adult cigarette smokers (n = 1214 for the ACT-based smoking cessation application group and n = 1201 for the USCPG-based smoking cessation application group) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month postrandomization follow-up. The study was prespecified in the trial protocol. Follow-up data collection started on August 26, 2017, and ended at the last randomized participant's 12-month follow-up survey on December 23, 2019. Data were analyzed from February 25 to April 3, 2020. The primary analysis was performed on a complete-case basis, with intent-to-treat missing as smoking and multiple imputation sensitivity analyses.InterventionsiCanQuit, an ACT-based smoking cessation application, which taught acceptance of smoking triggers, and the National Cancer Institute QuitGuide, a USCPG-based smoking cessation application, which taught avoidance of smoking triggers.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were 7-day PPA at 12 months after randomization, prolonged abstinence, 30-day and 7-day PPA at 3 and 6 months after randomization, missing data imputed with multiple imputation or coded as smoking, and cessation of all tobacco products (including e-cigarettes) at 12 months after randomization.ResultsParticipants were 2415 adult cigarette smokers (1700 women [70.4%]; 1666 White individuals [69.0%] and 868 racial/ethnic minorities [35.9%]; mean [SD] age at enrollment, 38.2 [10.9] years) from all 50 US states. The 3-month follow-up data retention rate was 86.7% (2093), the 6-month retention rate was 88.4% (2136), and the 12-month retention rate was 87.2% (2107). For the primary outcome of 30-day PPA at the 12-month follow-up, iCanQuit participants had 1.49 times higher odds of quitting smoking compared with QuitGuide participants (28.2% [293 of 1040] vs 21.1% [225 of 1067]; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.22-1.83; P < .001). Effect sizes were very similar and statistically significant for 7-day PPA at the 12-month follow-up (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.63; P = .002), prolonged abstinence at the 12-month follow-up (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.45-2.76; P < .001), abstinence from all tobacco products (including e-cigarettes) at the 12-month follow-up (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99; P < .001), 30-day PPA at 3-month follow-up (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68-2.89; P < .001), 30-day PPA at 6-month follow-up (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.63-2.54; P < .001), 7-day PPA at 3-month follow-up (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.64-2.54; P < .001), and 7-day PPA at 6-month follow-up (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.42-2.10; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis trial provides evidence that, compared with a USCPG-based smartphone application, an ACT-based smartphone application was more efficacious for quitting cigarette smoking and thus can be an impactful treatment option.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02724462.

Project description:BackgroundIn rural America, cigarette smoking is prevalent and health care providers lack the time and resources to help smokers quit. Telephone quitlines are important avenues for cessation services in rural areas, but they are poorly integrated with local health care resources.ObjectiveThe intent of the study was to assess the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of two models for delivering expert tobacco treatment at a distance: telemedicine counseling that was integrated into smokers' primary care clinics (Integrated Telemedicine-ITM) versus telephone counseling, similar to telephone quitline counseling, delivered to smokers in their homes (Phone).MethodsSmokers (n=566) were recruited offline from 20 primary care and safety net clinics across Kansas. They were randomly assigned to receive 4 sessions of ITM or 4 sessions of Phone counseling. Patients in ITM received real-time video counseling, similar to Skype, delivered by computer/webcams in clinic exam rooms. Three full-time equivalent trained counselors delivered the counseling. The counseling duration and content was the same in both groups and was available in Spanish or English. Both groups also received identical materials and assistance in selecting and obtaining cessation medications. The primary outcome was verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at month 12, using an intent-to-treat analysis.ResultsThere were no significant baseline differences between groups, and the trial achieved 88% follow-up at 12 months. Verified abstinence at 12 months did not significantly differ between ITM or Phone (9.8%, 27/280 vs 12%, 34/286; P=.406). Phone participants completed somewhat more counseling sessions than ITM (mean 2.6, SD 1.5 vs mean 2.4, SD 1.5; P=.0837); however, participants in ITM were significantly more likely to use cessation medications than participants in Phone (55.9%, 128/280 vs 46.1%, 107/286; P=.03). Compared to Phone participants, ITM participants were significantly more likely to recommend the program to a family member or friend (P=.0075). From the combined provider plus participant (societal) perspective, Phone was significantly less costly than ITM. Participants in ITM had to incur time and mileage costs to travel to clinics for ITM sessions. From the provider perspective, counseling costs were similar between ITM (US $45.46, SD 31.50) and Phone (US $49.58, SD 33.35); however, total provider costs varied widely depending on how the clinic space for delivering ITM was valued.ConclusionsFindings did not support the superiority of ITM over telephone counseling for helping rural patients quit smoking. ITM increased utilization of cessation pharmacotherapy and produced higher participant satisfaction, but Phone counseling was significantly less expensive. Future interventions could combine elements of both approaches to optimize pharmacotherapy utilization, counseling adherence, and satisfaction. Such an approach could commence with a telemedicine-delivered clinic office visit for pharmacotherapy guidance, and continue with telephone or real-time video counseling delivered via mobile phones to flexibly deliver behavioral support to patients where they most need it-in their homes and communities.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00843505; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00843505 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6YKSinVZ9).

Dataset Information

Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014.

Background and aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets