Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40437607›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2025

Effect and acceptability of an mHealth smoking cessation intervention 'Stopcoach' combined with smoking cessation counseling for people from multiple levels of socioeconomic position: a multi-methods study.

Daan L de Frel, Anne Zijp, Bas van den Putte, Sigrid Troelstra, Sander Hermsen, Eline Heemskerk, Veronica R Janssen, Douwe E Atsma, Niels H Chavannes, Eline Meijer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Daan L de FrelDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Anne ZijpPublic Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Bas van den PutteAmsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Sigrid TroelstraThe Netherlands Expertise Centre for Tobacco Control, Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Sander HermsenOnePlanet Research Center, imec NL, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Eline HeemskerkPharos Dutch Center of Expertise On Health Disparities, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Veronica R JanssenDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Douwe E AtsmaDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Niels H ChavannesPublic Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Eline MeijerPublic Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. e.meijer@lumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSmoking cessation interventions tend to be less effective for people of lower socioeconomic position (SEP) compared to those of higher SEP. Mobile phone-based interventions have been shown to increase abstinence from smoking. Stopcoach is an mHealth smoking cessation intervention that specifically targets people with a lower SEP. A pilot study showed the potential and feasibility of Stopcoach but as yet no research exists that assesses the effectiveness of Stopcoach.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate whether using Stopcoach in combination with group-based smoking cessation counselling (SCC; intervention group) increases short- and long-term abstinence compared to SCC alone (control groups). Secondarily, this study aims to assess acceptability of Stopcoach as perceived by people who smoke and SCC group coaches.

methodsThis multi-methods study was originally designed comparing an intervention group (n = 242; 2020-2022) to a historical control group (n = 3362; 2018-2020) that did not use Stopcoach. However, the COVID-19 pandemic hampered realistic comparison due to declining abstinence rates. Therefore, a COVID-era control group was added (n = 312; 2020-2021). All participants enrolled in professionally led SCC groups. The primary outcome was abstinence at four weeks and one year after quit date. In the intervention group, usability, acceptability and usefulness were also measured. In a qualitative assessment, eight SCC trainers were interviewed to explore acceptance by trainers and integration of Stopcoach into SCC.

resultsDue to the COVID-19 related overall decline in abstinence rates, the intervention group had lower abstinence rates compared to the pre-COVID control group (73.6% vs. 78.2% p < 0.001). However, the COVID-era control group revealed that Stopcoach, as addition to accredited SCC, was associated with higher abstinence rates after four weeks than SCC alone (73.6% vs. 57.1%, p < 0.001). This difference was sustained in the lower SEP subgroup (65.6% vs. 49.6%, p = 0.043). No overall significant differences in 1-year abstinence rates were found between the intervention group and both control groups. Participants rated usability, acceptability and usefulness highly positive, irrespective of SEP. Qualitative measures showed most trainers welcomed adding Stopcoach to their SCC.

conclusionAddition of the Stopcoach app to SCC appears effective and feasible. Importantly, this also holds for the lower SEP subgroup. This makes Stopcoach one of the few smoking cessation mHealth interventions that also meets the needs of people with lower SEP who smoke.

Indexed as

CounselingPatient Acceptance of Health CareSmoking CessationSocial ClassAdultCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTelemedicinemHealthSmoking cessationSmoking cessation counsellingSocioeconomic positionStopcoach

Identifiers

PMID40437607
PMCPMC12121142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.