ArticleDigital health
Acceptability of a smart lighter for tracking cigarette smoking: A focus group study.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- A tale of two apps: preliminary usability testing of smoking cessation mobile applications among individuals with low socioeconomic status who smoke cigarettes.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Perceptions of User-Generated Content as a Source of Health Messages in Smoking Cessation Mobile Interventions: Focus Group Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Perceptions Toward an Attentional Bias Modification Mobile Game Among Individuals With Low Socioeconomic Status Who Smoke: Qualitative Study.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- Acceptability of a carbon monoxide monitoring feature of a smoking cessation mobile application: a virtual focus group study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Smart lighters track cigarette smoking episodes, which can help identify smoking patterns and intervention approaches to promote cessation. We gauged the acceptability of smart lighters among individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES), a target population for a newly developed smoking cessation mobile intervention, to evaluate their potential use during the intervention pre-quit period. Methods: Twelve virtual focus group discussions were conducted with 38 current cigarette smokers, 18-29 years old, who were not 4-year college-educated nor enrolled in a 4-year college as an SES indicator. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a deductive thematic approach. Themes captured sentiment (i.e., negative, neutral, positive) and constructs from the Second Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (i.e., effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, performance expectancy, social influence). Results: Sentiment toward smart lighters was positive (54.36%). Prominent themes relevant to acceptance of smart lighters were facilitating conditions (33.98%), performance expectancy (29.12%), and effort expectancy (16.50%). Concerns about privacy, lack of awareness of smart lighters, and their unaffordability were the primary facilitating conditions discussed. Smart lighters were considered easy to use and useful cessation aids because they minimize user burden in tracking smoking behavior. Skepticism about their usefulness centered on the possibility of inadvertently triggering cravings and subsequent smoking. Conclusions: Ensuring the affordability, awareness, and usability of smart lighters can increase their acceptability. Use of smart lighters in cessation interventions can provide insights into smoking patterns with minimal user burden. Consideration must be given to their potential unintended effects as cueing smoking.
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.