ArticleSubstance use : research and treatment
Overcoming Challenges to Remote Biochemical Verification of Smoking Status: Insights From Participant Interviews.
Article in Substance use : research and treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- A Culturally Adapted Smoking Cessation App (IndigeQuit) for American Indian and Alaska Native Adults: Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
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
Objectives: Remote biochemical verification of smoking abstinence is limited by low adherence rates and technical problems with test completion. Qualitative data from study participants about their experiences completing these remote tests is lacking. The objectives were to interview participants who provided biochemical verification in a randomized trial of a smoking cessation intervention to (1) learn about participants' actual experiences with cotinine saliva testing; (2) examine willingness to conduct smartphone app-based carbon monoxide (CO) breathalyzer testing; and (3) gather recommendations to minimize barriers and improve adherence. Methods: Participants who completed biochemical verification were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews that included watching an instructional video about the breathalyzer test. Audio recordings were professionally transcribed, and 2 independent coders applied an interactive inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Ten participants, ages 38.7 (9.5) years (30% male) completed interviews. Barriers to successful saliva cotinine testing included: technical issues submitting results (56%), issues following written instructions (44%), saliva collection sponge discomfort (33%), confusion about invalid results (33%), and concerns with device safety/data usage (22%). While more participants said they would, in concept, prefer the CO test or had no preference, they reported more problems with completing the CO test, including potential inaccessibility for people with respiratory illness. Key recommendations for improving compliance included: increasing monetary incentives, diversifying reminders, amplifying reciprocity messaging, managing expectations, and embedding clear, concise in-app guidance. Conclusion: Results suggest that compliance with remote biochemical verification can be improved through a comprehensive approach that includes increasing incentives, managing expectations, streamlining visual instructions, and diversifying reminders.
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.