Efficacy of the QuitSure App for Smoking Cessation in Adult Smokers: Cross-Sectional Web Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable death worldwide. A worldwide study by the World Health Organization concluded that more than 8 million people die every year from smoking, tobacco consumption, and secondhand smoke. The most effective tobacco cessation programs require personalized human intervention combined with costly pharmaceutical supplementation, making them unaffordable or inaccessible to most tobacco users. Thus, digital interventions offer a promising alternative to these traditional methods. However, the leading smartphone apps available in the market today have either not been studied in a clinical setting or are unable to match the smoking cessation success rates of their expensive offline counterparts. We would like to understand whether QuitSure, a novel smoking cessation app built by Rapidkart Online Private Limited, is able to bridge this efficacy gap and deliver affordable and effective smoking cessation at scale. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to do an initial exploration into the engagement, efficacy, and safety of QuitSure based on the self-reported experiences of its users. Outcomes measured were program completion, the effect of program completion on smoking behavior, including self-reported cessation outcomes, and negative health events from using the app. METHODS: test of independence. RESULTS: In total, 1299 users who had completed the QuitSure program submitted the survey and satisfied the inclusion criteria of the study. Of these, 1286 participants had completed the program more than 30 days before filling out the survey, and 1040 (80.1%, 95% CI 79.1%-82.6%) of them had maintained prolonged abstinence for at least 30 days after program completion. A majority of participants (770/891, 86.4%) who were still maintaining abstinence at the time of submitting the survey did not experience any severe nicotine withdrawal symptoms, while 41.9% (373/891) experienced no mild withdrawal symptoms either. Smoking quantity prior to completing the program significantly affected quit rates (P<.001), with heavy smokers (>20 cigarettes per day) having a lower 30-day prolonged abstinence rate (relative risk=0.91; 95% CI 90.0%-96.2%) compared to lighter smokers. No additional adverse events outside of known nicotine withdrawal symptoms were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The nature of web-based surveys and cohort selection allows for extensive unknown biases. However, the efficacy rates of survey respondents who completed the program were high and provide a case for further investigation in the form of randomized controlled trials on the QuitSure tobacco cessation program.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".