Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35343904›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2022

Smartphone Apps for Vaping Cessation: Quality Assessment and Content Analysis.

Sherald Sanchez, Anasua Kundu, Elizabeth Limanto, Peter Selby, Neill Bruce Baskerville, Michael Chaiton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. e-Cigarette Tobacco Flavors, Public Health, and Toxicity: Narrative Review.Online journal of public health informatics · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sherald SanchezInstitute of Medical Science, Termerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5558-1007
Anasua KunduOntario Tobacco Research Unit, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0051-5816
Elizabeth LimantoDepartment of Pharmacology & Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9689-8027
Peter SelbyNicotine Dependence Service, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5401-2996
Neill Bruce BaskervilleOffice of Audit and Evaluation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4517-7443
Michael ChaitonInstitute of Medical Science, Termerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9589-2122
University of Toronto · CACentre for Addiction and Mental Health · CACanadian Institutes of Health Research · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the prevalence of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use, or vaping, continues to grow, particularly among young people, so does the need for research and interventions to address vaping.

objectiveThis study examines the quality of free vaping cessation apps, their contents and features, popularity among users, and adherence to evidence-based principles.

methodsA systematic search of existing apps for vaping cessation was conducted in December 2020. Eligible apps were free, in English, and included features specifically targeting vaping cessation. Each app included in the analysis was used daily for at least seven consecutive days, assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale, and rated by at least two authors (AK, EL, or SS) based on adherence to evidence-based practices. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates were computed to assess interrater reliability (excellent agreement; ICC 0.92; 95% CI 0.78-0.98).

resultsA total of 8 apps were included in the quality assessment and content analysis: 3 were developed specifically for vaping cessation and 5 focused on smoking cessation while also claiming to address vaping cessation. The mean of app quality total scores was 3.66 out of 5. Existing vaping cessation apps employ similar approaches to smoking cessation apps. However, they are very low in number and have limited features developed specifically for vaping cessation.

conclusionsGiven the lack of vaping cessation interventions at a time when they are urgently needed, smartphone apps are potentially valuable tools. Therefore, it is recommended that these apps apply evidence-based practices and undergo rigorous evaluations that can assess their quality, contents and features, and popularity among users. Through this process, we can improve our understanding of how apps can be effective in helping users quit vaping.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsMobile ApplicationsSmoking CessationVapingAdolescentHumansReproducibility of Resultscessatione-cigarettesmHealth interventionsvaping

Identifiers

PMID35343904
PMCPMC9002586
OpenAlexW4206024210

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.