Behavior Change Techniques in Popular Mobile Apps for Smoking Cessation in France: Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mobile app market differs from country to country, and to date, no previous review of the content quality of smoking cessation apps has been conducted in France. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the general quality of the most popular smoking cessation apps in France and also determine the degree to which apps adhere to established behavioral and cognitive techniques (BCTs) proven effective in clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic research of smoking cessation apps was conducted in both the Google Play Store and Apple Store in the French market. The general quality of popular apps was rated with the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), and the therapeutic quality was assessed with the ratio of adherence of the behavior change technique taxonomy for smoking cessation treatment. RESULTS: A total of 14 mobile apps met all the inclusion criteria of the content analysis. The interrater reliability varied from "substantial" (0.79) to "almost perfect" (0.9) for the two measures. The mean MARS score was 3.5 out of 5 (median 3.6, IQR 0.6 [3.2-3.8]). The findings suggest that popular apps focus primarily on the functionality dimension of the MARS scale (4.2/5). The mean number of BCTs was 22, with a large difference between apps (minimum 4, maximum 38). At least half of the apps addressed motivation (8.8/14, 63%) and advised on using behavioral skills in order to quit smoking or stay a nonsmoker (8.7/14, 62%). However, only a handful of apps gathered important information (5.9/14, 42%) in order to deliver proper advice regarding the use of approved medication or the implementation of behavioral techniques (4.3/14, 31%). The mean MARS score was positively correlated with the price (r=0.70, P=.007) and the number of BCTs used (r=0.67, P=.01). User rating was not correlated with any quality scale (P=.67). CONCLUSIONS: The content quality of popular smoking cessation apps in France varied by app type and price. Most popular apps propose in general good quality content but lack implementation of evidence-based BCTs associated with effectiveness on smoking cessation treatment. Further research is needed to evaluate the improvement in the content quality of smoking cessation apps in France.
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 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".