ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2025
Detecting imminent smoking lapse risk: Prospective lapse risk algorithm versus participant retrospective self-report.
Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Improving detection of smoking lapse risk factors could increase smoking cessation rates among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults, who are less likely to quit than the general population. This study used data from a randomized controlled trial that compared the efficacy of two smartphone-based smoking cessation interventions for socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. Daily ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) assessed current smoking lapse risk based on a previously developed algorithm. Participants were instructed to self-initiate EMAs when they were about to lapse and after a lapse. After self-reported lapses, participants were asked questions about the number of hours of awareness of heightened lapse risk prior to the lapse and coping skills that could have prevented the lapse. Overall, 157 participants self-initiated an EMA to report a smoking lapse during the 13-week post-quit study period. Participants reported detecting warning signs prior to 70.06 % of lapses; however, only 30 % of lapses were anticipated more than two hours in advance. The lapse risk algorithm detected elevated risk in 68.93 % of lapses that were preceded by an EMA within 24h. A logistic mixed-effects model indicated that on average the algorithm detected heightened lapse risk earlier than participants reported they were aware of heightened lapse risk, AOR= 3.34, 95 % CI [1.50-7.42]. Participants most frequently endorsed coping with the urge to smoke and stress as skills that would have helped them prevent lapses. EMA-informed algorithms show promise for detecting heightened risk for smoking lapse before participant recognition, an important step for developing effective real-time smoking cessation interventions for socioeconomically disadvantaged adults.
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.