MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392916847 · doi:10.2196/48050

Preliminary Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Smartphone App for Smoking Cessation in China: Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

2024· article· en· W4392916847 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shanshan Chen, Jinsong Tang, Congyang Wu, Ge Zhang, Jing Zhang, Yanhui Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbstinenceSmoking cessationRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The overall prevalence of cigarette smokers in China is very high, and China's total cigarette consumption makes up more than 40% of the world's consumption. In view of the lack of smoking cessation services and social support in China and the effectiveness of mobile phone apps for quitting smoking in other countries, we carried out a smartphone app-based smoking cessation trial in China. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based smoking cessation smartphone app among smokers seeking treatment in China. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled, web-based pilot clinical trial in China between February 23 and June 27, 2021. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to the smoking cessation app intervention group or the control group in a ratio of 1:1. The intervention group received the CBT smoking cessation intervention using a smartphone app, and the control group received a "thank you" message. The intervention was 4 weeks long, and the patients were followed up for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was self-reported continuous smoking abstinence at week 4 after the quit date. The secondary outcomes included self-reported 7-day point prevalence of smoking abstinence; reduction of the number of cigarettes smoked per day at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4; and program acceptability. RESULTS: A total of 973 people were recruited to quit smoking, of whom 262 completed basic information, 56 were excluded, and 206 were randomized and included in the final analysis. There were 189 (91.7%) men and 17 (8.3%) women, with an average age of 34.46 (SD 7.53) years and an average daily smoking rate of 15.93 (SD 7.10) cigarettes/day. We found 30 (29.7%) of the 101 participants in the intervention group and 7 (6.7%) of the 105 participants in the control group reported continuous smoking cessation after the quit date at week 4 (odds ratio 5.92, 95% CI 3.78-9.26; P<.001). The 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate of the intervention group varied from 42.6% (43/101) to 46.5% (47/101) after 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks, while the control group varied from 18.1% (19/105) to 26.7% (28/105). Compared to the control group, continued smokers consumed 1.5-3.0 fewer cigarettes per day in the intervention group. The overall program got positive user feedback with a high satisfaction rate (66/87, 76%) and an average Mobile Application Rating Scale user version score of 3.46. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study provided preliminary evidence that the CBT-based smoking cessation smartphone app led to improved smoking quit rates versus control in Chinese smokers. The study demonstrated the CBT-based smartphone app may be an effective and feasible digital treatment model to help smokers quit, which may improve smoking cessation service quality and accessibility in China. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04421170; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04421170. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041985.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207