MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414497613 · doi:10.2196/71683

Testing the Acceptability and Feasibility of a Gender-Informed Smoking Cessation mHealth App for Women: Mixed Methods Approach

2025· article· en· W4414497613 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Osnat C. Melamed, Kamna Mehra, Allison Gayapersad, Roshni Panda, Nadia Minian, Laurie Zawertailo, Leslie Buckley, Marta M. Maslej, Lorraine Greaves, Andreea C. Brabete, Jonathan Rose, Matt Ratto, Peter Selby

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthSmoking cessationIntervention (counseling)Relevance (law)Digital healthInteractivityeHealthBehaviour changeMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide. Women who smoke face greater health risks than men, including higher rates of cardiovascular disease and more pronounced declines in lung function. Despite this, women experience lower success rates with conventional smoking cessation treatments, due in part to unique sex- and gender-related factors influencing smoking behavior and barriers to quitting. Digital health tools, such as mobile health apps, offer a promising avenue for delivering accessible, tailored smoking cessation support to women. Objective: This study evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of the "My Change Plan-Women" (MCP-W) app, a gender-specific smoking cessation mobile health intervention co-designed with women who smoke, clinicians, and researchers, to address women's unique needs in smoking cessation. Methods: We conducted a single-group, prospective, sequential mixed methods study with 30 women who smoke in Ontario, Canada. Participants used the MCP-W app for 28 days. Acceptability was defined as ≥50% of participants endorsing "agree" or "strongly agree" to the statement "using the app is likely to help me make changes to my smoking habits." Feasibility was defined as ≥50% of participants using the app for 7 or more days during the trial period. Quantitative data on acceptability, smoking behavior, and motivation to quit were collected at baseline and follow-up via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) surveys. App usage metrics were captured through Google Analytics. Semistructured interviews explored participants' experiences using the app and were thematically analyzed using the theoretical framework of acceptability. Results: At follow-up, 37% (11/30; 95% CI 21%-56%) of participants rated the MCP-W app as acceptable, falling below the predefined threshold (≥50%) and indicating that the intervention "needs further work." Feasibility criteria were met, with 60% (18/30) of participants using the app for 7 or more days. Notably, acceptability was higher among those who used the app for more than 14 days (7/11, 64%) compared with those with lower usage (4/19, 21%). Average daily cigarette consumption decreased from 16.4 to 14.6 cigarettes, and the number of participants reporting at least 1 smoke-free day in the previous week increased from 7% (2/27) to 22% (6/27). Qualitative findings revealed that women with higher motivation to quit found the app more helpful, particularly its behavior change tools (eg, cigarette tracking and identifying triggers) and gender-specific content. However, women facing stress, mental health challenges, or low readiness found it harder to engage. Participants suggested enhancements including customizable reminders, more interactive content, and live or artificial intelligence-based emotional support. Conclusions: The MCP-W app is a feasible intervention for delivering gender-specific smoking cessation support. However, its acceptability was limited to a third of users with high levels of motivation. Improvements to interactivity and support features may enhance its relevance and uptake among women with complex barriers to quitting.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207