BACKGROUND: Text messaging has successfully supported smoking cessation. This study compares a mobile application with text messaging to support smoking cessation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Young adult smokers 18-30 years old (n = 102) participated in a randomized pretest-posttest trial. Smokers received a smartphone application (REQ-Mobile) with short messages and interactive tools or a text messaging system (onQ), managed by an expert system. Self-reported usability of REQ-Mobile and quitting behavior (quit attempts, point-prevalence, 30-day point-prevalence, and continued abstinence) were assessed in posttests. RESULTS: Overall, 60% of smokers used mobile services (REQ-Mobile, 61%, mean of 128.5 messages received; onQ, 59%, mean of 107.8 messages), and 75% evaluated REQ-Mobile as user-friendly. A majority of smokers reported being abstinent at posttest (6 weeks, 53% of completers; 12 weeks, 66% of completers [44% of all cases]). Also, 37% (25%of all cases) reported 30-day point-prevalence abstinence, and 32% (22% of all cases) reported continuous abstinence at 12 weeks. OnQ produced more abstinence (p<0.05) than REQ-Mobile. Use of both services predicted increased 30-day abstinence at 12 weeks (used, 47%; not used, 20%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: REQ-Mobile was feasible for delivering cessation support but appeared to not move smokers to quit as quickly as text messaging. Text messaging may work better because it is simple, well known, and delivered to a primary inbox. These advantages may disappear as smokers become more experienced with new handsets. Mobile phones may be promising delivery platforms for cessation services using either smartphone applications or text messaging.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Text messaging has successfully supported smoking cessation. This study compares a mobile application with text messaging to support smoking cessation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Young adult smokers 18-30 years old (n = 102) participated in a randomized pretest-posttest trial. Smokers received a smartphone application (REQ-Mobile) with short messages and interactive tools or a text messaging system (onQ), managed by an expert system. Self-reported usability of REQ-Mobile and quitting behavior (quit attempts, point-prevalence, 30-day point-prevalence, and continued abstinence) were assessed in posttests. RESULTS: Overall, 60% of smokers used mobile services (REQ-Mobile, 61%, mean of 128.5 messages received; onQ, 59%, mean of 107.8 messages), and 75% evaluated REQ-Mobile as user-friendly. A majority of smokers reported being abstinent at posttest (6 weeks, 53% of completers; 12 weeks, 66% of completers [44% of all cases]). Also, 37% (25%of all cases) reported 30-day point-prevalence abstinence, and 32% (22% of all cases) reported continuous abstinence at 12 weeks. OnQ produced more abstinence (p<0.05) than REQ-Mobile. Use of both services predicted increased 30-day abstinence at 12 weeks (used, 47%; not used, 20%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: REQ-Mobile was feasible for delivering cessation support but appeared to not move smokers to quit as quickly as text messaging. Text messaging may work better because it is simple, well known, and delivered to a primary inbox. These advantages may disappear as smokers become more experienced with new handsets. Mobile phones may be promising delivery platforms for cessation services using either smartphone applications or text messaging.
Authors: Stuart G Ferguson; Saul Shiffman; Joseph G Gitchell; Mark A Sembower; Robert West Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Bridget Gaglio; Tammy L Smith; Paul A Estabrooks; Debra P Ritzwoller; Erica F Ferro; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2008-12-30
Authors: K Michael Cummings; Andrew Hyland; Shannon Carlin-Menter; Martin C Mahoney; Jeffrey Willett; Harlan R Juster Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2011 May-Jun
Authors: Amanda L Graham; George D Papandonatos; Hakmook Kang; Jose L Moreno; David B Abrams Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Robyn Whittaker; Ralph Maddison; Hayden McRobbie; Chris Bullen; Simon Denny; Enid Dorey; Mary Ellis-Pegler; Jaco van Rooyen; Anthony Rodgers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2008-11-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Bettina B Hoeppner; Susanne S Hoeppner; Lourah Seaboyer; Melissa R Schick; Gwyneth W Y Wu; Brandon G Bergman; John F Kelly Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Emily Y Zeng; Roger Vilardaga; Jaimee L Heffner; Kristin E Mull; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Carmen Rosa; Aimee N C Campbell; Gloria M Miele; Meg Brunner; Erin L Winstanley Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-07-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Bruno Urrea; Satish Misra; Timothy B Plante; Heval M Kelli; Sanjit Misra; Michael J Blaha; Seth S Martin Journal: Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med Date: 2015-12
Authors: David B Buller; Marianne Berwick; Kathy Lantz; Mary Klein Buller; James Shane; Ilima Kane; Xia Liu Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Valery L Feigin; Bo Norrving; Mary G George; Jennifer L Foltz; Gregory A Roth; George A Mensah Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Emily Y Zeng; Jaimee L Heffner; Wade K Copeland; Kristin E Mull; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.913