ArticleAddiction neuroscience2023
Review of strategies to investigate low sample return rates in remote tobacco trials: A call to action for more user-centered design research.
Article in Addiction neuroscience, 2023. 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.
- Therapeutic contact intensity as an adjunct to a cognitive behavioral smoking cessation app: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2026Trial
- Acceptability of heart rate-based remote monitoring of smoking status.Addictive behaviors reports · 2024Article
- Advancing Biomarkers for Treatment of Smoking and Nicotine Dependence: An Overview.Addiction neuroscience · 2023Article
- Overcoming Challenges to Remote Biochemical Verification of Smoking Status: Insights From Participant Interviews.Substance use : research and treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Remote collection of biomarkers of tobacco use in clinical trials poses significant challenges. A recent meta-analysis and scoping review of the smoking cessation literature indicated that sample return rates are low and that new methods are needed to investigate the underlying causes of these low rates. In this paper we conducted a narrative review and heuristic analysis of the different human factors approaches reported to evaluate and/or improve sample return rates among 31 smoking cessation studies recently identified in the literature. We created a heuristic metric (with scores from 0 to 4) to evaluate the level of elaboration or complexity of the user-centered design strategy reported by researchers. Our review of the literature identified five types of challenges typically encountered by researchers (in that order): usability and procedural, technical (device related), sample contamination (e.g., polytobacco), psychosocial factors (e.g., digital divide), and motivational factors. Our review of strategies indicated that 35% of the studies employed user-centered design methods with the remaining studies relying on informal methods. Among the studies that employed user-centered design methods, only 6% reached a level of 3 in our user-centered design heuristic metric. None of the studies reached the highest level of complexity (i.e., 4). This review examined these findings in the context of the larger literature, discussed the need to address the role of health equity factors more directly, and concluded with a call to action to increase the application and reporting of user-centered design strategies in biomarkers research.
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.