Jonathan B Bricker1, Kristin E Mull2, Julie A Kientz3, Roger Vilardaga4, Laina D Mercer2, Katrina J Akioka2, Jaimee L Heffner2. 1. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Division of Public Health Sciences, 1100 Fairview Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109, USA; University of Washington, Department of Psychology, Box 351525, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: jbricker@fhcrc.org. 2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Division of Public Health Sciences, 1100 Fairview Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109, USA. 3. University of Washington, Department of Human Centered Design and Engineering, Box 352315, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. 4. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Division of Public Health Sciences, 1100 Fairview Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109, USA; University of Washington, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Box 356560, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a dual need for (1) innovative theory-based smartphone applications for smoking cessation and (2) controlled trials to evaluate their efficacy. Accordingly, this study tested the feasibility, acceptability, preliminary efficacy, and mechanism of behavioral change of an innovative smartphone-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) application for smoking cessation vs. an application following US Clinical Practice Guidelines. METHOD:Adult participants were recruited nationally into the double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial (n=196) that compared smartphone-delivered ACT for smoking cessation application (SmartQuit) with the National Cancer Institute's application for smoking cessation (QuitGuide). RESULTS: We recruited 196 participants in two months. SmartQuit participants opened their application an average of 37.2 times, as compared to 15.2 times for QuitGuide participants (p<0001). The overall quit rates were 13% in SmartQuit vs. 8% in QuitGuide (OR=2.7; 95% CI=0.8-10.3). Consistent with ACT's theory of change, among those scoring low (below the median) on acceptance of cravings at baseline (n=88), the quit rates were 15% in SmartQuit vs. 8% in QuitGuide (OR=2.9; 95% CI=0.6-20.7). CONCLUSIONS:ACT is feasible to deliver by smartphone application and shows higher engagement and promising quit rates compared to an application that follows US Clinical Practice Guidelines. As results were limited by the pilot design (e.g., small sample), a full-scale efficacy trial is now needed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is a dual need for (1) innovative theory-based smartphone applications for smoking cessation and (2) controlled trials to evaluate their efficacy. Accordingly, this study tested the feasibility, acceptability, preliminary efficacy, and mechanism of behavioral change of an innovative smartphone-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) application for smoking cessation vs. an application following US Clinical Practice Guidelines. METHOD: Adult participants were recruited nationally into the double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial (n=196) that compared smartphone-delivered ACT for smoking cessation application (SmartQuit) with the National Cancer Institute's application for smoking cessation (QuitGuide). RESULTS: We recruited 196 participants in two months. SmartQuit participants opened their application an average of 37.2 times, as compared to 15.2 times for QuitGuide participants (p<0001). The overall quit rates were 13% in SmartQuit vs. 8% in QuitGuide (OR=2.7; 95% CI=0.8-10.3). Consistent with ACT's theory of change, among those scoring low (below the median) on acceptance of cravings at baseline (n=88), the quit rates were 15% in SmartQuit vs. 8% in QuitGuide (OR=2.9; 95% CI=0.6-20.7). CONCLUSIONS: ACT is feasible to deliver by smartphone application and shows higher engagement and promising quit rates compared to an application that follows US Clinical Practice Guidelines. As results were limited by the pilot design (e.g., small sample), a full-scale efficacy trial is now needed.
Authors: Jack F Hollis; Timothy A McAfee; Jeffrey L Fellows; Susan M Zbikowski; Michael Stark; Karen Riedlinger Journal: Tob Control Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Ricardo F Muñoz; Leslie L Lenert; Kevin Delucchi; Jacqueline Stoddard; John E Perez; Carlos Penilla; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Christopher W Kahler; Heather R Lachance; David R Strong; Susan E Ramsey; Peter M Monti; Richard A Brown Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2007-04-06 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Jonathan B Bricker; Terry Bush; Susan M Zbikowski; Laina D Mercer; Jaimee L Heffner Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Pebbles Fagan; Gary King; Deirdre Lawrence; Sallie Anne Petrucci; Robert G Robinson; David Banks; Sharon Marable; Rachel Grana Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jaimee L Heffner; Roger Vilardaga; Laina D Mercer; Julie A Kientz; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Judith S Gordon; Julie Armin; Melanie D Hingle; Peter Giacobbi; James K Cunningham; Thienne Johnson; Kristopher Abbate; Carol L Howe; Denise J Roe Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.046
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: Jaimee L Heffner; Jennifer B McClure; Kristin E Mull; Robert M Anthenelli; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 6.744