MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2465352156 · doi:10.2196/resprot.4881

Young Adult Utilization of a Smoking Cessation Website: An Observational Study Comparing Young and Older Adult Patterns of Use

2016· article· en· W2465352156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Cantrell, Vinu Ilakkuvan, Amanda L. Graham, Amanda Richardson, Haijun Xiao, Robin J. Mermelstein, Susan J. Curry, Amy K. Sporer, Donna Vallone

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsYoung adultObservational studySmoking cessationPsychological interventionMedicinePsychologyGerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is little research on how young adults or young adult subgroups utilize and engage with Web-based cessation interventions when trying to quit smoking. Addressing this knowledge gap is important to identify opportunities to optimize the effectiveness of online cessation programs across diverse young adult users. OBJECTIVE: This study examines utilization of the BecomeAnEX.org smoking cessation website among young adults and young adult subgroups compared with older adults to identify patterns of use by age, gender, and race/ethnicity. METHODS: Study participants were 5983 new registered users on a free smoking cessation website who were aged 18 to 70 years. Website utilization was tracked for 6 months; metrics of use included website visits, pages per visit, length of visit, and interaction with specific website features. Differences in website use by age were examined via bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Interactions were examined to determine differences by gender and race/ethnicity within young (18- to 24-year-olds and 25- to 34-year-olds) and older (35 years and older) adult segments. RESULTS: A greater percentage of young adults aged 18 to 34 years visited the site only once compared with older adults aged 35 years and older (72.05% vs 56.59%, respectively; P<.001). Young adults also spent less time on the site and viewed fewer pages than older adults. In adjusted analyses, young adults were significantly less likely than older adults to visit the site more than once (18-24 years: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.68, P<.001; 25-34 years: AOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50-0.64, P<.001), spend more than 3 minutes on the site (18-24 years: AOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.79, P<.001; 25-34 years: AOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.49-0.64, P<.001), view 12 or more pages (18-24 years: AOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.83; P<.001; 25-34 years: AOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.76, P<.001), utilize the BecomeAnEX.org community (18-24 years: AOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.79, P<.001; 25-34 years: AOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.88, P<.001), or utilize Separation Exercises (18-24 years: AOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.89, P<.01; 25-34 years: AOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.94, P<.01). Gender differences in utilization were more pronounced among young adults compared with older adults, with lower levels of utilization among young men than young women. For all age groups, utilization was higher among whites and African Americans than among Hispanics and other racial minorities, with one exception-BecomeAnEX.org community utilization was significantly higher among Hispanic young adults compared with white and African American young adults. CONCLUSIONS: Results point to important areas of inquiry for future research and development efforts. Research should focus on enhancing demand and increasing engagement among younger adults and men, examining strategies for capitalizing on young adult developmental needs, and increasing utilization of effective site features among diverse young adult users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.530
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.018 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→