Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36633844›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

Effect of a Machine Learning Recommender System and Viral Peer Marketing Intervention on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Jamie M Faro, Jinying Chen, Julie Flahive, Catherine S Nagawa, Elizabeth A Orvek, Thomas K Houston, Jeroan J Allison, Sharina D Person, Bridget M Smith, Amanda C Blok and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03224520 (Smoker-to-Smoker), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03224520 nacompletednot on this map

Smoker-to-Smoker (S2S) Peer Marketing and Messaging to Disseminate Tobacco

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Massachusetts, WorcesterRan2017 to 2020Enrolled1,487ConditionsSmoking CessationArmsRecommender CTHC, Standard CTHC, Peer Recruitment, Standard Online Recruitment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Replicable Bandits for Digital Health Interventions.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Jamie M FaroDivision of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.
Jinying ChenDivision of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.
Julie FlahiveDivision of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.
Catherine S NagawaDivision of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.
Elizabeth A OrvekDivision of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.
Thomas K HoustonWake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Jeroan J AllisonDivision of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.
Sharina D PersonDivision of Biostatistics and Health Services Research, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.
Bridget M SmithSpinal Cord Injury Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Hines VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Amanda C BlokDepartment of Systems, Populations and Leadership, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor.
Rajani S SadasivamDivision of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.

Funding

iDAPT: Implementation and Informatics - Developing Adaptable Processes and Technologies for Cancer Control P50CA244693 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI DRESSLER, EMILY VAN METER · 2019 to 2023
$4.1M
K12 Cardiopulmonary Implementation Science Scholars ProgramK12HL138049 · NHLBI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LEMON, STEPHENIE C., LINDENAUER, PETER KYLE · 2017 to 2021
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244693NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL138049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Novel data science and marketing methods of smoking-cessation intervention have not been adequately evaluated. Objective: To compare machine learning recommender (ML recommender) computer tailoring of motivational text messages vs a standard motivational text-based intervention (standard messaging) and a viral peer-recruitment tool kit (viral tool kit) for recruiting friends and family vs no tool kit in a smoking-cessation intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2 ×2 factorial randomized clinical trial with partial allocation, conducted between July 2017 and September 2019 within an online tobacco intervention, recruited current smokers aged 18 years and older who spoke English from the US via the internet and peer referral. Data were analyzed from March through May 2022. Interventions: Participants registering for the online intervention were randomly assigned to the ML recommender or standard messaging groups followed by partially random allocation to access to viral tool kit or no viral tool kit groups. The ML recommender provided ongoing refinement of message selection based on user feedback and comparison with a growing database of other users, while the standard system selected messages based on participant baseline readiness to quit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Our primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking cessation at 6 months. Results: Of 1487 participants who smoked (444 aged 19-34 years [29.9%], 508 aged 35-54 years [34.1%], 535 aged ≥55 years [36.0%]; 1101 [74.0%] females; 189 Black [12.7%] and 1101 White [78.5%]; 106 Hispanic [7.1%]), 741 individuals were randomly assigned to the ML recommender group and 746 individuals to the standard messaging group; viral tool kit access was provided to 745 participants, and 742 participants received no such access. There was no significant difference in 6-month smoking cessation between ML recommender (146 of 412 participants [35.4%] with outcome data) and standard messaging (156 of 389 participants [40.1%] with outcome data) groups (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.08). Smoking cessation was significantly higher in viral tool kit (177 of 395 participants [44.8%] with outcome data) vs no viral tool kit (125 of 406 participants [30.8%] with outcome data) groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11-1.98). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, machine learning-based selection did not improve performance compared with standard message selection, while viral marketing did improve cessation outcomes. These results suggest that in addition to increasing dissemination, viral recruitment may have important implications for improving effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03224520.

Indexed as

Smoking CessationBehavior TherapyFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleSelf ReportSmokers

Identifiers

PMID36633844
PMCPMC9856644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.