ArticleAddictive behaviors2018
Collecting outcome data of a text messaging smoking cessation intervention with in-program text assessments: How reliable are the results?
Article in Addictive behaviors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual abstinence from nicotine vaping and cannabis use among young people: secondary analyses from two U.S.-based randomized controlled trials of vaping cessation.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of an optimized text message and Internet intervention for smoking cessation: A randomized controlled trial.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2022Trial
- Association Between Phosphorylated AXL Expression and Survival in Patients with Gastric Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- SMS-text messaging for collecting outcome measures after acute stroke.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundText messaging interventions have shown promise in helping people quit smoking. Texting programs periodically survey participants about their smoking status. This study examined the consistency of participant self-reported smoking between external surveys and internal program text message assessments.
methodsParticipants in Text2Quit program were surveyed about their past 7-day smoking at one, three, and six months post-enrollment using different survey modes (external surveys and internal program text message assessments) and responses were compared for consistency. The first set of analyses was conducted for participants responding on both modes (n = 45 at one month; n = 50 at three months; n = 42 at six months). Additional analyses, assuming missing = smoking, were conducted with the full sample of 262 smokers (68.7% female, mean age = 35.8 years) and compared to saliva-confirmed abstinence rates.
resultsParticipants responding to both modes consistently reported smoking status at one (88.9%), three (88.0%) and six (88.1%) months post-enrollment, with fair to substantial levels of agreement (one month: κ = 0.24; three months: κ = 0.63; six months: κ = 0.66). Participants responding to both modes reported high rates of abstinence. In missing = smoking analyses, significant differences in abstinence rates reported across modes were detected at each timepoint (one month: external = 30.5%, internal = 16.4%; three months: external = 33.2%, internal = 16.0%; six months: external = 31.7%, internal = 12.2%; all p < .001). Moderate levels of agreement were found between the two modes. At 6 months, abstinence rates obtained via internal data were closer to those biochemically verified (15.7%) compared to external surveys.
conclusionsResults provide initial support for the use of internal program assessments in text messaging programs with missing = smoking assumptions in order to gather outcome data on smoking behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.