Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30563807›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

A Comprehensive Digital Program for Smoking Cessation: Assessing Feasibility in a Single-Group Cohort Study.

Heather Patrick, Craig A Fujii, Debra B Glaser, David S Utley, Jennifer D Marler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A Scoping Review and Meta-analysis of the Use of Remote Biochemical Verification Methods of Smoking Status in Tobacco Research.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Heather PatrickCarrot Inc, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3078-5606
Craig A FujiiCarrot Inc, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5395-9958
Debra B GlaserCarrot Inc, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8491-1615
David S UtleyCarrot Inc, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9758-0448
Jennifer D MarlerCarrot Inc, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8105-3275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease worldwide. Evidence-based approaches are available, but few people access them. Although digital solutions offer great promise for population reach, few multicomponent programs exist. Pivot is a comprehensive digital solution combining a Food and Drug Administration-cleared carbon monoxide (CO) breath sensor; cigarette logging; a 6-phase, app-delivered smoking cessation program based on the US Clinical Practice Guidelines; and dedicated human coaching via text-based chat.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess program engagement, changes in attitudes toward smoking, self-reported changes in smoking behavior, and program acceptability for the initial phase of Pivot: Explore.

methodsA total of 48 participants enrolled, and 41 completed the study. About half the participants (54%, 22/41) were men, and the mean age was 43 years. Most (85%, 35/41) were daily smokers and smoked an average of 12 cigarettes per day. Explore includes CO breath sensing, logging cigarettes in-app, learning via in-app activities, and dedicated human coaching through a text messaging interface. Participants completed surveys at baseline and exit assessing attitudes toward quitting including readiness, perceived difficulty, and confidence in quit success. At exit, participants also completed a survey of changes in smoking behavior and ratings of program acceptability.

resultsMore than 80% of participants (34-39 of 41) took ≥1 CO breath sample each day, and more than 55% (23-27 of 41) took ≥5 samples each day. More than 65% of participants (27-34 of 41) logged ≥1 cigarette using the in-app logging feature each day. All 9 in-app activities had completion rates ≥80% (33-40 of 41). Response to coach-initiated outreach was also high, with all contacts receiving ≥73% (30-39 of 41) response. In matched pair analyses, significant positive changes in mean attitudes toward quitting (scale 1-10) were evident from baseline (T1) to study exit (T2), including increased readiness to quit (T1 mean=6.1, T2 mean=7.4, P=.005), lower perceived difficulty (T1 mean=3.7, T2 mean=5.6, P=.001), and greater expectations of success (T1 mean=4.5, T2 mean=6.5, P<.001). At exit, 78% (32/41) of participants reported decreasing the number of cigarettes smoked per day during the study. Participants rated program quality and satisfaction very high (mean ≥8 for all items).

conclusionsThese results support the feasibility and acceptability of the initial 9-day phase of Pivot: Explore. Participants had high levels of engagement with sensing, logging, learning, and coaching. Attitudes toward quitting improved significantly, and the majority of users indicated decreasing smoking behavior. Explore was designed to raise smoker awareness and motivation. Additional research is underway to assess how users progress through the full Pivot smoking cessation program and determine the program's effectiveness for achieving sustained cessation.

Indexed as

carbon monoxidecell phonehealth promotionsmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID30563807
PMCPMC6315234

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.