Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36881452›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Comparison of a Daily Smartphone App and Retrospective Questionnaire Measures of Adherence to Nicotine Replacement Therapy Among Pregnant Women: Observational Study.

Joanne Emery, Yue Huang, Felix Naughton, Sue Cooper, Lisa McDaid, Anne Dickinson, Miranda Clark, Darren Kinahan-Goodwin, Ross Thomson, Lucy Phillips and 2 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The Relationship Between Reported Daily Nicotine Dose from NRT and Daily Cigarette Consumption in Pregnant Women Who Smoke in an Observational Cohort Study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Observational
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joanne EmerySchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8915-7033
Yue HuangCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3799-3758
Felix NaughtonSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9790-2796
Sue CooperCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1994-6395
Lisa McDaidSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5032-2380
Anne DickinsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3125-8077
Miranda ClarkCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6179-046X
Darren Kinahan-GoodwinCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8054-0212
Ross ThomsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4078-0657
Lucy PhillipsCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3574-6561
Sarah LewisDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5308-6619
Tim ColemanCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7303-4805
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew studies have investigated how to best measure adherence to smoking cessation medications, but continuous usage measures are recommended.

objectiveIn this first study of its kind, we compared methods for measuring adherence to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) among pregnant women, investigating the completeness and validity of data collected from daily assessments using a smartphone app versus data collected from retrospective questionnaires.

methodsWomen aged ≥16 years who were daily smokers and <25 weeks pregnant were offered smoking-cessation counseling and encouraged to use NRT. For 28 days after setting a quit date (QD), women were asked to report NRT use daily to a smartphone app and to questionnaires administered in person or remotely at 7 and 28 days. For both data collection methods, we provided up to £25 (~US $30) as compensation for the time taken providing research data. Data completeness and NRT use reported to the app and in questionnaires were compared. For each method, we also correlated mean daily nicotine doses reported within 7 days of the QD with Day 7 saliva cotinine concentrations.

resultsOf the 438 women assessed for eligibility, 40 participated and 35 accepted NRT. More participants (31/35) submitted NRT usage data to the app by Day 28 (median 25, IQR 11 days) than completed the Day 28 questionnaire (24/35) or either of the two questionnaires (27/35). Data submitted to the app showed a lower reported duration of NRT use compared to that indicated in the questionnaire (median for app 24 days, IQR 10.25; median for questionnaire 28 days, IQR 4.75; P=.007), and there appeared to be specific cases of overreporting to the questionnaire. Mean daily nicotine doses between the QD and Day 7 were lower when calculated using app data (median for app 40 mg, IQR 52.1; median for questionnaire 40 mg, IQR 63.1; P=.001), and some large outliers were evident for the questionnaire. Mean daily nicotine doses, adjusted for cigarettes smoked, were not associated with cotinine concentrations for either method (app r

conclusionsDaily assessment of NRT use via a smartphone app facilitated more complete data (a higher response rate) than questionnaires, and reporting rates over 28 days were encouraging among pregnant women. App data had better face validity; retrospective questionnaires appeared to overestimate NRT use for some participants.

Indexed as

ecological momentary assessmentmHealthmobile healthnicotinenicotine replacement therapypregnancyquestionnairessmartphone appsmokingsmoking cessationtreatment adherence measurement

Identifiers

PMID36881452
PMCPMC10031440
OpenAlexW4293101832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read23
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.