The Effectiveness of Smartphone App–Based Interventions for Assisting Smoking Cessation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Smoking is a leading cause of premature death globally. Quitting smoking reduces the risk of all-cause mortality by 11%-34%. Smartphone app–based smoking cessation (SASC) interventions have been developed and are widely used. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of smartphone-based interventions for smoking cessation is currently equivocal. Objective The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of smartphone app–based interventions for smoking cessation. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of smartphone interventions for smoking cessation based on the Cochrane methodology. An electronic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases to identify published papers in English or Chinese (there was no time limit regarding the publication date). The outcome was the smoking abstinence rate, which was either a 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate or a continuous abstinence rate. Results A total of 9 randomized controlled trials involving 12,967 adults were selected for the final analysis. The selected studies from 6 countries (the United States, Spain, France, Switzerland, Canada, and Japan) were included in the meta-analysis between 2018 and 2022. Pooled effect sizes (across all follow-up time points) revealed no difference between the smartphone app group and the comparators (standard care, SMS text messaging intervention, web-based intervention, smoking cessation counseling, or apps as placebos without real function; odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95% CI 0.99-1.56, P=.06, I2=73.6%). Based on the subanalyses, 6 trials comparing smartphone app interventions to comparator interventions reported no significant differences in effectiveness (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85-1.26, P=.74, I2=57.1%). However, the 3 trials that evaluated the combination of smartphone interventions combined with pharmacotherapy compared to pharmacotherapy alone found higher smoking abstinence rates in the combined intervention (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.38-2.33, P=.74, I2=7.4%). All SASC interventions with higher levels of adherence were significantly more effective (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.84, P<.001, I2=24.5%). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis did not support the effectiveness of delivering smartphone-based interventions alone to achieve higher smoking abstinence rates. However, the efficacy of smartphone-based interventions increased when combined with pharmacotherapy-based smoking cessation approaches. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42021267615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=267615
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 | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".