Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26950256›Full record

ArticleAddictive behaviors2016

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

Harveen Kaur Ubhi, Daniel Kotz, Susan Michie, Onno C P van Schayck, David Sheard, Abiram Selladurai, Robert West

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Addictive behaviors, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Harveen Kaur UbhiCancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: harveenk26@gmail.com.
Daniel KotzCancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine, University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Susan MichieDepartment of Clinical Effectiveness and Health Psychology, Centre for Outcome Research and Effectiveness, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Onno C P van SchayckDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
David SheardCancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Abiram SelladuraiCancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Robert WestCancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14135Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsSmartphone 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.

methods137 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.

resultsBCTs 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%).

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

Indexed as

SmartphoneSmoking CessationAdaptation, PsychologicalBehavior TherapyCravingHumansMobile ApplicationsSmokingApplicationsAppsBCTsBehaviour change interventionBehaviour change techniquesContent analysisEase-of-useEngagementMobileSmartphoneSmokingSmoking cessationTaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID26950256
PMCPMC4821061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.