Mobile Phone Apps for Preventing Cancer Through Educational and Behavioral Interventions: State of the Art and Remaining Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid developments in technology have encouraged the use of mobile phones in smoking cessation, promoting healthy diet, nutrition, and physical activity, sun safety, and cancer screening. Although many apps relating to the prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases are available from major mobile phone platforms, relatively few have been tested in research studies to determine their efficacy. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we discuss issues related to the development and testing of new apps for preventing cancer through smoking cessation, sun safety, and other healthy behaviors, including key methodologic issues and outstanding challenges. METHODS: An exploratory literature review was conducted using bibliographic searches in PubMed and CINAHL with relevant search terms (eg, smartphones, smoking cessation, cancer prevention, cancer screening, and carcinogens) to identify papers published in English through October 2015. RESULTS: Only 4 randomized controlled trials of the use of mobile phone apps for smoking cessation and 2 trials of apps for sun safety were identified, indicating that it is premature to conduct a systematic search and meta-analysis of the published literature on this topic. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should utilize randomized controlled trial research designs, larger sample sizes, and longer study periods to better establish the cancer prevention and control capabilities of mobile phone apps. In developing new and refined apps for cancer prevention and control, both health literacy and eHealth literacy should be taken into account. There is a need for culturally appropriate, tailored health messages to increase knowledge and awareness of health behaviors such as smoking cessation, cancer screening, and sun safety. Mobile phone apps are likely to be a useful and low-cost intervention for preventing cancer through behavioral changes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".