MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012654067 · doi:10.2196/18327

Effectiveness of a Quit Vaping Text Message Program in Promoting Abstinence Among Young Adult E-Cigarette Users: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3012654067 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amanda L. Graham, Megan A Jacobs, Michael S. Amato, Sarah Cha, Mia M. Bottcher, George D. Papandonatos

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCVS Health
KeywordsSmoking cessationAbstinenceRandomized controlled trialText messagingIntervention (counseling)Protocol (science)Text messagePsychological interventionMedicineQuit smokingPsychologyFamily medicineAlternative medicinePsychiatryInternet privacyComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Millions of young adults currently vape electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), yet little research on vaping cessation interventions exists. Text messaging is a promising, scalable intervention strategy for delivering vaping cessation treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the effectiveness of a text message quit vaping program (This is Quitting) in promoting abstinence from e-cigarettes among young adults; examines changes in self-efficacy, perceived social norms, and social support for quitting as hypothesized mediators of effectiveness; and examines if treatment effectiveness is moderated by gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual minority status. METHODS: Overall, 2600 young adult (aged 18-24 years) e-cigarette users in the United States will be recruited via web advertisements to participate in the study. Participants will be randomized to This is Quitting or an assessment-only control condition. The primary outcome measure is 30-day vaping abstinence at 7 months post enrollment. RESULTS: Study recruitment began on December 18, 2019, and is projected to be completed by spring 2020. The final 7-month follow-up is anticipated to be completed by fall/winter 2020. Because this is the first-ever evaluation of a quit vaping program, we were unable to draw on existing literature to determine the appropriate sample size. Therefore, we examined abstinence rates among an initial pilot sample of 269 participants (This is Quitting: n=148 and control: n=121) who completed the 1-month follow-up to determine the final sample size. The 1-month response rate was 79.2% (213/269), with no difference between arms. Using intention-to-treat analyses that counted nonresponders as still vaping, 30-day abstinence rates were 16.2% (24/148) among those randomized to This is Quitting and 8.3% (10/121) among those randomized to control. A treatment difference of 16% vs 8% is detectable with 80% power at 2-sided alpha=.05 with 260/group (520 total). To detect treatment differences of this magnitude in a 20% subsample (eg, Hispanic or sexual minority young adult e-cigarette users), we will enroll 1300/group (2600 total). CONCLUSIONS: The scientific, clinical, and public health communities are desperate for cessation resources to address vaping among young people. This study is the first-ever comparative effectiveness trial of an intervention to help young people quit vaping. It focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of a theory-grounded, empirically informed text message intervention among young adults. The study is fully powered to examine potentially important subgroup differences among young people who are more vulnerable to e-cigarette use. Although potentially more challenging from a research ethics and pragmatic standpoint, evaluating quit vaping intervention approaches in teens is an important area for future research. Data from this trial will establish a benchmark of effectiveness for other vaping cessation programs and begin to create a body of evidence focused on how best to help young people break free from e-cigarettes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04251273; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04251273. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18327.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.382 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207