Evaluation of the Tobbstop Mobile App for Smoking Cessation: Cluster Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile apps provide an accessible way to test new health-related methodologies. Tobacco is still the primary preventable cause of death in industrialized countries, constituting an important public health issue. New technologies provide novel opportunities that are effective in the cessation of smoking tobacco. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to evaluate the efficacy and usage of a mobile app for assisting adult smokers to quit smoking. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized clinical trial. We included smokers older than 18 years who were motivated to stop smoking and used a mobile phone compatible with our mobile app. We carried out follow-up visits at 15, 30, and 45 days, and at 2, 3, 6, and 12 months. Participants of the intervention group had access to the Tobbstop mobile app designed by the research team. The primary outcomes were continuous smoking abstinence at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 773 participants were included in the trial, of which 602 (77.9%) began the study on their D-Day. Of participants in the intervention group, 34.15% (97/284) did not use the app. The continuous abstention level was significantly larger in the intervention group participants who used the app than in those who did not use the app at both 3 months (72/187, 38.5% vs 13/97, 13.4%; P<.001) and 12 months (39/187, 20.9% vs 8/97, 8.25%; P=.01). Participants in the intervention group who used the app regularly and correctly had a higher probability of not being smokers at 12 months (OR 7.20, 95% CI 2.14-24.20; P=.001) than the participants of the CG. CONCLUSIONS: Regular use of an app for smoking cessation is effective in comparison with standard clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01734421; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01734421.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".