MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3142592833 · doi:10.2196/25030

Self-Efficacy and Motivation to Quit of Smokers Seeking to Quit: Quantitative Assessment of Smoking Cessation Mobile Apps

2021· article· en· W3142592833 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nikita B Rajani, Nikolaos Mastellos, Filippos T Filippidis

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesImperial College London
Mots-clésSmoking cessationSelf-efficacyPsychological interventionQuit smokingMedicineClinical psychologyPsychologymHealthPsychiatrySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Decreasing trends in the number of individuals accessing face-to-face support are leaving a significant gap in the treatment options for smokers seeking to quit. Face-to-face behavioral support and other interventions attempt to target psychological factors such as the self-efficacy and motivation to quit of smokers, as these factors are associated with an increased likelihood of making quit attempts and successfully quitting. Although digital interventions, such as smoking cessation mobile apps, could provide a promising avenue to bridge the growing treatment gap, little is known about their impact on psychological factors that are vital for smoking cessation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to better understand the possible impact of smoking cessation mobile apps on important factors for successful cessation, such as self-efficacy and motivation to quit. Our aim is to assess the self-efficacy and motivation to quit levels of smokers before and after the use of smoking cessation mobile apps. METHODS: Smokers seeking to quit were recruited to participate in a 4-week app-based study. After screening, eligible participants were asked to use a mobile app (Kwit or Quit Genius). The smoking self-efficacy questionnaire and the motivation to stop smoking scale were used to measure the self-efficacy and motivation to quit, respectively. Both were assessed at baseline (before app use), midstudy (2 weeks after app use), and end-study (4 weeks after app use). Paired sample two-tailed t tests were used to investigate whether differences in self-efficacy and motivation between study time points were statistically significant. Linear regression models investigated associations between change in self-efficacy and change in motivation to quit before and after app use with age, gender, and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: A total of 116 participants completed the study, with the majority being male (71/116, 61.2%), employed (76/116, 65.6%), single (77/116, 66.4%), and highly educated (87/116, 75.0%). A large proportion of participants had a low to moderate dependence on nicotine (107/116, 92.2%). A statistically significant increase of 5.09 points (95% CI 1.83-8.34) from 37.38 points at baseline in self-efficacy was found at the end of the study. Statistically significant increases were also found for the subcomponents of self-efficacy (intrinsic and extrinsic self-efficacies). Similarly, a statistically significant increase of 0.38 points (95% CI 0.06-0.70) from 5.94 points at baseline in motivation to quit was found at the end of the study. Gender, age, and nicotine dependence were not statistically significantly associated with changes in self-efficacy and motivation to quit. CONCLUSIONS: The assessed mobile apps positively impacted the self-efficacy and motivation to quit of smokers making quit attempts. This has important implications on the possible future use of digitalized interventions and how they could influence important psychological factors for quitting such as self-efficacy and motivation. However, further research is needed to assess whether digital interventions can supplement or replace traditional forms of therapy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,052
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,579

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,079
Tête enseignante GPT0,434
Écart entre enseignants0,354 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations56
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR mhealth and uhealthMême sujetSmoking Behavior and CessationTravaux en français237 207