Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40151637›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Acceptability of a smart lighter for tracking cigarette smoking: A focus group study.

Lydia Tesfaye, Michael Wakeman, Tim Gregory, Erin Leahy, Gunnar Baskin, Greg Gruse, Brandon Kendrick, Sherine El-Toukhy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Lydia TesfayeDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7484-9631
Michael WakemanDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3970-6057
Tim GregoryICF, Reston, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3421-7847
Erin LeahyICF, Reston, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9806-6131
Gunnar BaskinICF, Reston, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9093-3563
Greg GruseICF, Reston, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1600-4164
Brandon KendrickICF, Reston, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5893-7372
Sherine El-ToukhyDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0329-5823

Funding

Digital Health and Health Disparities Research LabZIAMD000011 · NIMHD · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES · PI EL-TOUKHY, SHERINE · 2018 to 2025
$3.1M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA MD000011
6 · The paper itself

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

focus groupsmHealthSmart lighterssmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID40151637
PMCPMC11946283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.