MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904723824 · doi:10.2196/11708

A Comprehensive Digital Program for Smoking Cessation: Assessing Feasibility in a Single-Group Cohort Study

2018· article· en· W2904723824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather Patrick, Craig A Fujii, Debra B Glaser, David S. Utley, Jennifer D Marler

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoking cessationMedicineCoachingHealth coachingPopulationCohortPsychological interventionFamily medicinePhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease worldwide. Evidence-based approaches are available, but few people access them. Although digital solutions offer great promise for population reach, few multicomponent programs exist. Pivot is a comprehensive digital solution combining a Food and Drug Administration-cleared carbon monoxide (CO) breath sensor; cigarette logging; a 6-phase, app-delivered smoking cessation program based on the US Clinical Practice Guidelines; and dedicated human coaching via text-based chat. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess program engagement, changes in attitudes toward smoking, self-reported changes in smoking behavior, and program acceptability for the initial phase of Pivot: Explore. METHODS: A total of 48 participants enrolled, and 41 completed the study. About half the participants (54%, 22/41) were men, and the mean age was 43 years. Most (85%, 35/41) were daily smokers and smoked an average of 12 cigarettes per day. Explore includes CO breath sensing, logging cigarettes in-app, learning via in-app activities, and dedicated human coaching through a text messaging interface. Participants completed surveys at baseline and exit assessing attitudes toward quitting including readiness, perceived difficulty, and confidence in quit success. At exit, participants also completed a survey of changes in smoking behavior and ratings of program acceptability. RESULTS: More than 80% of participants (34-39 of 41) took ≥1 CO breath sample each day, and more than 55% (23-27 of 41) took ≥5 samples each day. More than 65% of participants (27-34 of 41) logged ≥1 cigarette using the in-app logging feature each day. All 9 in-app activities had completion rates ≥80% (33-40 of 41). Response to coach-initiated outreach was also high, with all contacts receiving ≥73% (30-39 of 41) response. In matched pair analyses, significant positive changes in mean attitudes toward quitting (scale 1-10) were evident from baseline (T1) to study exit (T2), including increased readiness to quit (T1 mean=6.1, T2 mean=7.4, P=.005), lower perceived difficulty (T1 mean=3.7, T2 mean=5.6, P=.001), and greater expectations of success (T1 mean=4.5, T2 mean=6.5, P<.001). At exit, 78% (32/41) of participants reported decreasing the number of cigarettes smoked per day during the study. Participants rated program quality and satisfaction very high (mean ≥8 for all items). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the feasibility and acceptability of the initial 9-day phase of Pivot: Explore. Participants had high levels of engagement with sensing, logging, learning, and coaching. Attitudes toward quitting improved significantly, and the majority of users indicated decreasing smoking behavior. Explore was designed to raise smoker awareness and motivation. Additional research is underway to assess how users progress through the full Pivot smoking cessation program and determine the program's effectiveness for achieving sustained cessation.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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