MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607633511 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.7226

Clickotine, A Personalized Smartphone App for Smoking Cessation: Initial Evaluation

2017· article· en· W2607633511 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian M. Iacoviello, Joshua R. Steinerman, David B Klein, Theodore L Silver, Adam G. Berger, Sean X. Luo, Nicholas J. Schork

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoking cessationmHealthMedicinePsychological interventionSmartphone appAbstinenceFamily medicineDownloadInternet privacyPsychiatryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and the annual economic burden attributable to smoking exceeds US $300 billion. Obstacles to smoking cessation include limited access and adherence to effective cessation interventions. Technology can help overcome these obstacles; many smartphone apps have been developed to aid smoking cessation, but few that conform to the US clinical practice guideline (USCPG) have been rigorously tested and reported in the literature. Clickotine is a novel smartphone app for smoking cessation, designed to deliver the essential features of the USCPG and engineered to engage smokers by personalizing intervention components. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the engagement, efficacy, and safety of Clickotine in an initial, single-arm study. Outcomes measured were indicators of engagement with the smartphone app (number of app opens, number of interactions with the Clickotine program, and weeks active with Clickotine), cessation outcomes of 7- and 30-day self-reported abstinence from smoking, and negative health events. METHODS: We recruited US residents between 18 and 65 years of age who owned an iPhone and smoked 5 or more cigarettes daily for the study via online advertising. Respondents were prescreened for eligibility by telephone and, if appropriate, directed to a Web portal to provide informed consent, confirm eligibility, and download the Clickotine app. Participants completed study assessments via the online portal at baseline and after 8 weeks. Data were collected in Amazon S3 with no manual data entry, and access to all data was maximally restrictive, logged, and auditable. RESULTS: A total of 416 participants downloaded the app and constituted the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample. On average, participants opened the Clickotine app 100.6 times during the 8-week study (median 69), logged 214.4 interactions with the Clickotine program (median 178), and remained engaged with Clickotine for 5.3 weeks (median 5). Among the ITT sample, 45.2% (188/416) reported 7-day abstinence and 26.2% (109/416) reported 30-day abstinence from smoking after 8 weeks. Completer analysis focused on 365 (87.7%) of the 416 enrolled participants who completed the 8-week questionnaire revealed that 51.5% (188/365) of completers reported 7-day abstinence and 29.9% (109/365) reported 30-day abstinence. Few adverse events, mostly consistent with nicotine withdrawal symptoms, were reported and overall no safety signal was detected. CONCLUSIONS: In this initial single-arm trial, Clickotine users appeared to demonstrate encouraging indicators of engagement in terms of the number of app opens, number of program interactions, and continued engagement over time. Clickotine users reported encouraging quit rates while reporting few adverse events. Future research is warranted to assess Clickotine's efficacy in a randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02656745; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02656745 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6peTT4x60).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations141
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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