User Participation and Engagement With the See Me Smoke-Free mHealth App: Prospective Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The See Me Smoke-Free (SMSF) mobile health (mHealth) app was developed to help women quit smoking by targeting concerns about body weight, body image, and self-efficacy through cognitive behavioral techniques and guided imagery audio files addressing smoking, diet, and physical activity. A feasibility trial found associations between SMSF usage and positive treatment outcomes. This paper reports a detailed exploration of program use among eligible individuals consenting to study participation and completing the baseline survey (participants) and ineligible or nonconsenting app installers (nonparticipants), as well as the relationship between program use and treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether (1) participants were more likely to set quit dates, be current smokers, and report higher levels of smoking at baseline than nonparticipants; (2) participants opened the app and listened to audio files more frequently than nonparticipants; and (3) participants with more app usage had a higher likelihood of self-reported smoking abstinence at follow up. METHODS: The SMSF feasibility trial was a single arm, within-subjects, prospective cohort study with assessments at baseline and 30 and 90 days post enrollment. The SMSF app was deployed on the Google Play Store for download, and basic profile characteristics were obtained for all app installers. Additional variables were assessed for study participants. Participants were prompted to use the app daily during study participation. Crude differences in baseline characteristics between trial participants and nonparticipants were evaluated using t tests (continuous variables) and Fisher exact tests (categorical variables). Exact Poisson tests were used to assess group-level differences in mean usage rates over the full study period using aggregate Google Analytics data on participation and usage. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate associations of app usage with participant baseline characteristics after adjustment for putative confounders. Associations between app usage and self-reported smoking abstinence were assessed using separate logistic regression models for each outcome measure. RESULTS: Participants (n=151) were more likely than nonparticipants (n=96) to report female gender (P<.02) and smoking in the 30 days before enrollment (P<.001). Participants and nonparticipants opened the app and updated quit dates at the same average rate (rate ratio [RR] 0.98; 95% CI 0.92-1.04; P=.43), but participants started audio files (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.13; P<.04) and completed audio files (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.18; P<.003) at significantly higher rates than nonparticipants. Higher app usage among participants was positively associated with some smoking cessation outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests potential efficacy of the SMSF app, as increased usage was generally associated with higher self-reported smoking abstinence. A planned randomized controlled trial will assess the SMSF app's efficacy as an intervention tool to help women quit smoking.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".