Tanya R Schlam1, Timothy B Baker2. 1. Department of Medicine, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
Objective: Strong cravings to smoke are an obstacle to cessation success. Unfortunately, cessation medication and counseling only modestly quell craving. This pilot study was designed to examine the feasibility of mobile games as a response strategy to craving and whether a fully powered trial is warranted. Materials and Methods: Smokers interested in quitting (N = 30) were offered 4 weeks of nicotine patch plus counseling and randomized to quit with (games-on) versus without (games-off) access to 11 commercial mobile games. Outcomes included post-target quit day (TQD) game play, craving, smoking, and quitting. Almost all P's were >0.05; outcomes should be interpreted with caution due to the small N. Results:Of games-on participants (n = 16), one played games ≥80% of days post-TQD (22/28 days); 38% played >1/3 of days; 25% did not play. Games-on participants reported games moderately helped them cope with cravings; M = 3.22 on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Also, games-on participants showed a slight decrease in craving from baseline to 1-week post-TQD (2.35-2.25 on a 0-5 point-scale), whereas games-off participants showed an increase (2.01-2.53). Games-on participants showed greater decreases in craving after playing a game than after the passage of time (when an app imposed a 2-minute wait period following their game request), but there was little evidence games-on versus games-off participants differed in mean post-TQD cigarettes/day. Games-on participants reported modestly but not significantly higher continuous abstinence through day 28 (31.3% vs. 21.4%). Conclusion: Feasibility results encourage a fully powered trial of this easily disseminable intervention. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02164383.
RCT Entities:
Objective: Strong cravings to smoke are an obstacle to cessation success. Unfortunately, cessation medication and counseling only modestly quell craving. This pilot study was designed to examine the feasibility of mobile games as a response strategy to craving and whether a fully powered trial is warranted. Materials and Methods: Smokers interested in quitting (N = 30) were offered 4 weeks of nicotine patch plus counseling and randomized to quit with (games-on) versus without (games-off) access to 11 commercial mobile games. Outcomes included post-target quit day (TQD) game play, craving, smoking, and quitting. Almost all P's were >0.05; outcomes should be interpreted with caution due to the small N. Results: Of games-on participants (n = 16), one played games ≥80% of days post-TQD (22/28 days); 38% played >1/3 of days; 25% did not play. Games-on participants reported games moderately helped them cope with cravings; M = 3.22 on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Also, games-on participants showed a slight decrease in craving from baseline to 1-week post-TQD (2.35-2.25 on a 0-5 point-scale), whereas games-off participants showed an increase (2.01-2.53). Games-on participants showed greater decreases in craving after playing a game than after the passage of time (when an app imposed a 2-minute wait period following their game request), but there was little evidence games-on versus games-off participants differed in mean post-TQD cigarettes/day. Games-on participants reported modestly but not significantly higher continuous abstinence through day 28 (31.3% vs. 21.4%). Conclusion: Feasibility results encourage a fully powered trial of this easily disseminable intervention. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02164383.
Entities:
Keywords:
Craving; Mobile games; Smartphones; Smoking cessation treatment; Tobacco dependence
Authors: Megan E Piper; Tanya R Schlam; Jessica W Cook; Megan A Sheffer; Stevens S Smith; Wei-Yin Loh; Daniel M Bolt; Su-Young Kim; Jesse T Kaye; Kathryn R Hefner; Timothy B Baker Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Lorien C Abroms; Pamela R Johnson; Leah E Leavitt; Sean D Cleary; Jessica Bushar; Thomas H Brandon; Shawn C Chiang Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Emily T Hébert; Elise M Stevens; Summer G Frank; Darla E Kendzor; David W Wetter; Michael J Zvolensky; Julia D Buckner; Michael S Businelle Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-10-28 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Elizabeth A Edwards; Hope Caton; Jim Lumsden; Carol Rivas; Liz Steed; Yutthana Pirunsarn; Sandra Jumbe; Chris Newby; Aditi Shenvi; Samaresh Mazumdar; Jim Q Smith; Darrel Greenhill; Chris J Griffiths; Robert T Walton Journal: JMIR Serious Games Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 4.143
Authors: Kathryn L DeLaughter; Rajani S Sadasivam; Ariana Kamberi; Thomas M English; Greg L Seward; S Wayne Chan; Julie E Volkman; Daniel J Amante; Thomas K Houston Journal: JMIR Serious Games Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 4.143