Effect of Adding Personalized Instant Messaging Apps to a Brief Smoking Cessation Model in Community Smokers in Hong Kong: Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While text messaging has proven effective for smoking cessation (SC), engagement in the intervention remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate whether using more interactive and adaptive instant messaging (IM) apps on smartphones, which enable personalization and chatting with SC advisors, can enhance SC outcomes beyond the provision of brief SC advice and active referral (AR) to SC services. METHODS: From December 2018 to November 2019, we proactively recruited 700 adult Chinese daily cigarette users in Hong Kong. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. At baseline, all participants received face-to-face brief advice on SC. Additionally, they were introduced to local SC services and assisted in selecting one. The intervention group received an additional 26 personalized regular messages and access to interactive chatting through IM apps for 3 months. The regular messages aimed to enhance self-efficacy, social support, and behavioral capacity for quitting, as well as to clarify outcome expectations related to cessation. We developed 3 sets of messages tailored to the planned quit date (within 30 days, 60 days, and undecided). Participants in the intervention group could initiate chatting with SC advisors on IM themselves or through prompts from regular messages or proactive inquiries from SC advisors. The control group received 26 SMS text messages focusing on general health. The primary outcomes were smoking abstinence validated by carbon monoxide levels of <4 parts per million at 6 and 12 months after the start of the intervention. RESULTS: Of the participants, 505/700 (72.1%) were male, and 450/648 (69.4%) were aged 40 or above. Planning to quit within 30 days was reported by 500/648 (77.2%) participants, with fewer intervention group members (124/332, 37.3%) reporting previous quit attempts compared with the control group (152/335, 45.4%; P=.04). At the 6- and 12-month follow-ups (with retention rates of 456/700, 65.1%, and 446/700, 63.7%, respectively), validated abstinence rates were comparable between the intervention (14/350, 4.0%, and 19/350, 5.4%) and control (11/350, 3.1% and 21/350, 6.0%) groups. Compared with the control group, the intervention group reported greater utilization of SC services at 12 months (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01-1.56). Within the intervention group, engaging in chat sessions with SC advisors predicted better validated abstinence at 6 months (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.13-9.63) and any use of SC services (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.43 at 6 months; RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.26-2.23 at 12 months). CONCLUSIONS: An IM-based intervention, providing support and assistance alongside brief SC advice and AR, did not yield further increases in quitting rates but did encourage the utilization of SC services. Future research could explore whether enhanced SC service utilization leads to improved long-term SC outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800719; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800719.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".