MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387125745 · doi:10.1101/2023.09.27.23296238

Smartphone Apps for Cannabis Cessation: Quality Assessment and Content Analysis

2023· preprint· en· W4387125745 on OpenAlexaff
Siddharth Seth, Sumedha Kushwaha, Reshma Prashad, Michael Chaiton

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoHumber PolytechnicCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisApp storeQuality (philosophy)Psychological interventionMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Over the past 2 decades, global rates of cannabis use have risen significantly, especially among young adults. This has corresponded to an increase in cannabis-related problems and hospitalizations. Thus, there has been significant interest in developing new interventions that can help facilitate cannabis cessation and reduce hospitalization rates. Specifically, mobile apps have emerged as scalable and accessible stand-alone or adjunct interventions that can help individuals with cannabis use disorders. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of free cannabis cessation apps available on both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, focusing on the analysis of their features, content, and adherence to evidence-based practices. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in April 2023 using a variety of keywords. The apps were deemed eligible if they were free, available in English, accessible on both the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store, and related to cannabis cessation. Eligible apps were used for at least 1 month and were rated on the Mobile App Rating Scale by 2 reviewers. Interrater reliability was excellent, with a weighted Cohen κ of 0.893 (95% CI 0.835-0.943). RESULTS: Four apps were included in the analysis, namely, "Grounded-Quit Weed," "Quit Weed," "Marijuana Addiction Calendar," and "Marijuana Anonymous." The mean overall quality score of the apps was 3.4 out of 5, indicating poor to acceptable quality. The apps scored the highest on the "functionality" section and the lowest on the "information" section. Of the 4 apps, 3 focused on tracking cannabis use and duration of abstinence, whereas 1 focused on peer support. A limited number of cannabis cessation apps were identified, and those that were available were of low quality due to a lack of evidence-based information. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to evaluate the current availability and quality of mobile apps designed for cannabis cessation. Unlike previous research that broadly assessed cannabis-related mobile apps, this study focuses on the limited number of free cannabis cessation tools, reflecting what is most available to the general population. The findings highlight a significant gap between the growing demand for virtual cessation tools and the quality of existing options. With the rising global prevalence of cannabis use disorders, there is an increasing need for robust, accessible, and evidence-based therapeutic options. While mobile health apps may be a viable option to support cannabis cessation, the current landscape is limited by poor quality apps and a lack of evidence-based information. From a real-world perspective, this study highlights the need for users to exercise caution when relying on current cannabis cessation apps and underscores the urgent need for the development and evaluation of new evidence-based digital interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.266
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.266
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0320.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→