MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2481568562 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.6002

Evaluating an Adaptive and Interactive mHealth Smoking Cessation and Medication Adherence Program: A Randomized Pilot Feasibility Study

2016· article· en· W2481568562 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer B. McClure, Melissa Anderson, Katharine A. Bradley, Lawrence C. An, Sheryl L. Catz

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthNational Institute on Drug AbuseCenters for Disease Control and PreventionBloomberg PhilanthropiesJohns Hopkins UniversityWorld Health Organization
KeywordsmHealthSmoking cessationPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialMedicineAbstinenceVareniclineBehavior changeFamily medicineNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions hold great promise for helping smokers quit since these programs can have wide reach and facilitate access to comprehensive, interactive, and adaptive treatment content. However, the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of these programs remain largely untested. OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility and acceptability of the My Mobile Advice Program (MyMAP) smoking cessation program and estimate its effects on smoking cessation and medication adherence to inform future research planning. METHODS: Sixty-six smokers ready to quit were recruited from a large regional health care system and randomized to one of two mHealth programs: (1) standard self-help including psychoeducational materials and guidance how to quit smoking or (2) an adaptive and interactive program consisting of the same standard mHealth self-help content as controls received plus a) real-time, adaptively tailored advice for managing nicotine withdrawal symptoms and medication side-effects and b) asynchronous secure messaging with a cessation counselor. Participants in both arms were also prescribed a 12-week course of varenicline. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 2 weeks post-target quit date (TQD), 3 months post-TQD, and 5 months post-TQD. Indices of program feasibility and acceptability included acceptability ratings, utilization metrics including use of each MyMAP program component (self-help content, secure messaging, and adaptively tailored advice), and open-ended feedback from participants. Smoking abstinence and medication adherence were also assessed to estimate effects on these treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Utilization data indicated the MyMAP program was actively used, with higher mean program log-ins by experimental than control participants (10.6 vs 2.7, P<.001). The majority of experimental respondents thought the MyMAP program could help other people quit smoking (22/24, 92%) and consistently take their stop-smoking medication (17/22, 97%) and would recommend the program to others (20/23, 87%). They also rated the program as convenient, responsive to their needs, and easy to use. Abstinence rates at 5-month follow-up were 36% in the experimental arm versus 24% among controls (odds ratio 1.79 [0.61-5.19], P=.42). Experimental participants used their varenicline an average of 46 days versus 39 among controls (P=.49). More than two-thirds (22/33, 67%) of experimental participants and three-quarters (25/33, 76%) of controls prematurely discontinued their varenicline use (P=.29). CONCLUSIONS: The MyMAP intervention was found to be feasible and acceptable. Since the study was not powered for statistical significance, no conclusions can be drawn about the program's effects on smoking abstinence or medication adherence, but the overall study results suggest further evaluation in a larger randomized trial is warranted. CLINICALTRIAL: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02136498; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02136498 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6jT3UMFLj).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207