John A Naslund1, Sunny Jung Kim2, Kelly A Aschbrenner3, Laura J McCulloch4, Mary F Brunette5, Jesse Dallery6, Stephen J Bartels7, Lisa A Marsch5. 1. Health Promotion Research Center at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, United States; The Center for Technology and Behavioral Health, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, United States. Electronic address: john.a.naslund@gmail.com. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States; Department of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States. 3. Health Promotion Research Center at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States; Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States. 4. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States. 5. The Center for Technology and Behavioral Health, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, United States; Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States. 6. Department of Psychology, University of Florida, United States. 7. Health Promotion Research Center at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, United States; Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Popular social media could extend the reach of smoking cessation efforts. In this systematic review, our objectives were: 1) to determine whether social media interventions for smoking cessation are feasible, acceptable, and potentially effective; 2) to identify approaches for recruiting subjects; and 3) to examine the specific intervention design components and strategies employed to promote user engagement and retention. METHODS: We searched Scopus, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science through July 2016 and reference lists of relevant articles. Included studies described social media interventions for smoking cessation and must have reported outcomes related to feasibility, acceptability, usability, or smoking-related outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 7 studies (all were published since 2014) that enrolled 9755 participants (median=136 [range 40 to 9042]). Studies mainly used Facebook (n=4) or Twitter (n=2), and emerged as feasible and acceptable. Five studies reported smoking-related outcomes such as greater abstinence, reduction in relapse, and an increase in quit attempts. Most studies (n=6) recruited participants using online or Facebook advertisements. Tailored content, targeted reminders, and moderated discussions were used to promote participant engagement. Three studies found that active participation through posting comments or liking content may be associated with improved outcomes. Retention ranged from 35% to 84% (median=70%) across the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of social media interventions for smoking cessation. Future research should continue to explore approaches for promoting user engagement and retention, and whether sustained engagement translates to clinically meaningful smoking cessation outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Popular social media could extend the reach of smoking cessation efforts. In this systematic review, our objectives were: 1) to determine whether social media interventions for smoking cessation are feasible, acceptable, and potentially effective; 2) to identify approaches for recruiting subjects; and 3) to examine the specific intervention design components and strategies employed to promote user engagement and retention. METHODS: We searched Scopus, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science through July 2016 and reference lists of relevant articles. Included studies described social media interventions for smoking cessation and must have reported outcomes related to feasibility, acceptability, usability, or smoking-related outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 7 studies (all were published since 2014) that enrolled 9755 participants (median=136 [range 40 to 9042]). Studies mainly used Facebook (n=4) or Twitter (n=2), and emerged as feasible and acceptable. Five studies reported smoking-related outcomes such as greater abstinence, reduction in relapse, and an increase in quit attempts. Most studies (n=6) recruited participants using online or Facebook advertisements. Tailored content, targeted reminders, and moderated discussions were used to promote participant engagement. Three studies found that active participation through posting comments or liking content may be associated with improved outcomes. Retention ranged from 35% to 84% (median=70%) across the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of social media interventions for smoking cessation. Future research should continue to explore approaches for promoting user engagement and retention, and whether sustained engagement translates to clinically meaningful smoking cessation outcomes.
Authors: Nathan K Cobb; Megan A Jacobs; Paul Wileyto; Thomas Valente; Amanda L Graham Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Cynthia M Lakon; Cornelia Pechmann; Cheng Wang; Li Pan; Kevin Delucchi; Judith J Prochaska Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Danielle E Ramo; Johannes Thrul; Kathryn Chavez; Kevin L Delucchi; Judith J Prochaska Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Daniel Capurro; Kate Cole; Maria I Echavarría; Jonathan Joe; Tina Neogi; Anne M Turner Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jessica Y Breland; Lisa M Quintiliani; Kristin L Schneider; Christine N May; Sherry Pagoto Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Yulin Hswen; John A Naslund; Pooja Chandrashekar; Robert Siegel; John S Brownstein; Jared B Hawkins Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Lisa A Marsch; Aimee Campbell; Cynthia Campbell; Ching-Hua Chen; Emre Ertin; Udi Ghitza; Chantal Lambert-Harris; Saeed Hassanpour; August F Holtyn; Yih-Ing Hser; Petra Jacobs; Jeffrey D Klausner; Shea Lemley; David Kotz; Andrea Meier; Bethany McLeman; Jennifer McNeely; Varun Mishra; Larissa Mooney; Edward Nunes; Chrysovalantis Stafylis; Catherine Stanger; Elizabeth Saunders; Geetha Subramaniam; Sean Young Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-03
Authors: Isaac Chun-Hai Fung; Elizabeth B Blankenship; Jennifer O Ahweyevu; Lacey K Cooper; Carmen H Duke; Stacy L Carswell; Ashley M Jackson; Jimmy C Jenkins; Emily A Duncan; Hai Liang; King-Wa Fu; Zion Tsz Ho Tse Journal: Perm J Date: 2019-12-06
Authors: Natalie Gold; Amy Yau; Benjamin Rigby; Chris Dyke; Elizabeth Alice Remfry; Tim Chadborn Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lisa McDaid; Ross Thomson; Joanne Emery; Tim Coleman; Sue Cooper; Lucy Phillips; Felix Naughton Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.390