Evaluation of QuitNow Men: An Online, Men-Centered Smoking Cessation Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Men continue to smoke cigarettes in greater numbers than women. There is growing evidence for the value of developing targeted, men-centered health promotion programs. However, few smoking cessation interventions have been designed for men. A gender-specific website, QuitNow Men, was developed based on focus group interview findings, stakeholder feedback, and evidence-based cessation strategies. The website was designed to incorporate a masculine look and feel through the use of images, direct language, and interactive content. Usability experts and end-users provided feedback on navigation and functionality of the website prior to pilot testing. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the pilot study were to describe (1) men's use and evaluations of the interactive resources and information on the QuitNow Men website, and (2) the potential of QuitNow Men to engage men in reducing and quitting smoking. METHODS: A one-group, pretest-posttest study design was used. Men who were interested in quitting were recruited and invited to use the website over a 6-month period. Data were collected via online questionnaires at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up. A total of 117 men completed the baseline survey. Over half of those (67/117, 57.3%) completed both follow-up surveys. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (N=117) had been smoking for an average of 24 years (SD 12.1) and smoked on average 15 cigarettes a day (SD 7.4). The majority had not previously used a quit smoking website (103/117, 88.0%) or websites focused on men's health (105/117, 89.7%). At the 6-month follow-up, the majority of men used the QuitNow Men website at least once (64/67, 96%). Among the 64 users, 29 (43%) reported using the website more than 6 times. The men using QuitNow Men agreed or strongly agreed that the website was easy to use (51/64, 80%), the design and images were appealing (42/64, 66%), they intended to continue to use the website (42/64, 66%), and that they would recommend QuitNow Men to others who wanted to quit (46/64, 72%). Participants reported using an average of 8.76 (SD 4.08) of the 15 resources available on the website. At 6-month follow-up, 16 of the 67 participants (24%) had quit, 27 (40%) had reduced their smoking and 24 (36%) had not changed their smoking habits. Repeated measures general linear model showed a significant decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked between the 3-month and 6-month follow-up (F1,63=6.41, P=.01, eta squared=0.09). Number of resources used on the website, quit confidence, nicotine dependence and age significantly predicted number of quit attempts by those still smoking at 6 months (F4,45=2.73, P=.04), with number of resources used being the strongest predictor (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this research support efforts to integrate gender-sensitive approaches in smoking cessation interventions and indicate that this novel Web-based resource has potential in supporting men's smoking cessation efforts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".