Smartphone Apps for Vaping Cessation: Quality Assessment and Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the prevalence of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use, or vaping, continues to grow, particularly among young people, so does the need for research and interventions to address vaping. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the quality of free vaping cessation apps, their contents and features, popularity among users, and adherence to evidence-based principles. METHODS: A systematic search of existing apps for vaping cessation was conducted in December 2020. Eligible apps were free, in English, and included features specifically targeting vaping cessation. Each app included in the analysis was used daily for at least seven consecutive days, assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale, and rated by at least two authors (AK, EL, or SS) based on adherence to evidence-based practices. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates were computed to assess interrater reliability (excellent agreement; ICC 0.92; 95% CI 0.78-0.98). RESULTS: A total of 8 apps were included in the quality assessment and content analysis: 3 were developed specifically for vaping cessation and 5 focused on smoking cessation while also claiming to address vaping cessation. The mean of app quality total scores was 3.66 out of 5. Existing vaping cessation apps employ similar approaches to smoking cessation apps. However, they are very low in number and have limited features developed specifically for vaping cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of vaping cessation interventions at a time when they are urgently needed, smartphone apps are potentially valuable tools. Therefore, it is recommended that these apps apply evidence-based practices and undergo rigorous evaluations that can assess their quality, contents and features, and popularity among users. Through this process, we can improve our understanding of how apps can be effective in helping users quit vaping.
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 | 0.119 | 0.272 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".