MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982279240 · doi:10.2196/13712

Predictors of Retention in an Adult Text Messaging Smoking Cessation Intervention Program: Cohort Study

2019· article· en· W2982279240 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kara P. Wiseman, Kisha Coa, Yvonne Prutzman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSmoking cessationMedicineDemographyIntervention (counseling)Logistic regressionCohortNicotine replacement therapyOdds ratioMultinomial logistic regressionYoung adultConfidence intervalConfoundingGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mobile health tools such as text messaging programs can support smoking cessation. However, high rates of disengagement from these tools decrease their effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify user characteristics associated with retention in an adult text messaging smoking cessation intervention. METHODS: Adults initiating a quit attempt using the publicly available program SmokefreeTXT between March 6 and June 21, 2016 (n=6215), were included. Data were collected to assess nicotine dependence, frequency of being around other smokers, time of the day for cigarette cravings, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to quit smoking, confidence in quitting, and long-term intention to be smoke free. Multivariable survival analysis modeling for time to opt out was conducted to identify characteristics associated with opting out over the course of the intervention, adjusting for age, sex, and smoking frequency, reset of the quit date by the user, and the number of days enrolled before initiating the quit attempt. Among those who opted out, multivariable multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of opting out early (within 3 days and between 4 and 7 days into the quit attempt) compared to opting out late (more than 7 days into the quit attempt), adjusting for the same confounders. RESULTS: Survival analyses indicated that younger age, female sex, higher levels of nicotine dependence, lower intention to be smoke free, and enrolling in SmokefreeTXT ≤1 week before initiating the quit attempt were associated with an increased risk of opting out. For example, users who smoked within 5 minutes of waking up were 1.17 times more likely to opt out than those who smoked more than 5 minutes after waking up (95% CI 1.01-1.35). Among users who opted out from SmokefreeTXT, logistic regression modeling indicated that compared to users who were never or rarely around other smokers, those who were sometimes around other smokers had 1.96 times more likely to opt out within the first 3 days of the quit attempt (95% CI 1.18-3.25). In addition, compared to users with high levels of long-term quit intention, users with lower levels of intention had 1.80 times the odds of opting out between 4 and 7 days into the quit attempt (95% CI 1.02-3.18). Users who reset their quit date after initiating a quit attempt were less likely to opt out at either time point compared with those who did not reset their quit date. CONCLUSIONS: Several user characteristics are associated with retention in an adult text messaging smoking cessation program. These results provide guidance on potential characteristics that should be addressed in future text messaging smoking cessation programs. Providing additional support to users with these characteristics may increase retention in text messaging programs and ultimately lead to smoking 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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.352 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→