iPhone Apps for Smoking Cessation

Abroms, Lorien C.; Padmanabhan, Nalini; Thaweethai, Lalida; Phillips, Todd M.

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.032

Cited by 353 publications

(354 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

328

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite vast interest in cancer eHealth and the applied nature of this field, our findings suggest that few studies used innovative designs to address key translation issues or reported transparently on issues central to dissemination. Given the surge of EHIs, health technology, and the lack of evidence-based interventions readily available to consumers [29,30], there is a need for use of alternative pragmatic study designs, transparent reporting of external validity components to produce more rapid and generalizable results, and comparison of intervention effects assessed along the pragmatic-explanatory continuum by both PRECIS domains and practical feasibility criteria. We encourage investigators to utilize PRECIS and practical feasibility criteria used in this review to design, test, and evaluate EHIs in the future.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control interventions: new technology, same methods and designs?

Sánchez

Rabin

Gaglio

et al. 2013

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a recent surge of eHealth programs in cancer and other content areas, but few reviews have focused on the methodologies and designs employed in these studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies on eHealth interventions on cancer prevention and control published between 2001 and 2010 applying the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria and external validity components from the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. We identified 113 studies that focused on cancer prevention and control of eHealth interventions. Most studies fell midway along the explanatory/ pragmatic trial continuum, but few reported on various practical feasibility criteria for translation. Despite vast interest in cancer eHealth and the applied nature of this field, few studies considered key external validity issues. There is a need for use of alternative pragmatic study designs and transparent reporting of external validity components to produce more rapid and generalizable results.Keywords eHealth, Pragmatic trials, Systematic review, Design, PRECIS, External validity, RE-AIM framework BACKGROUND Reductions in cancer morbidity and mortality are partly attributable to interventions addressing modifiable risk factors and screening behaviors [1]. However, such advancements in cancer outcomes are not observed among all populations, specifically those with limited access to cancer care and efficacious behavior interventions [2,3]. The recent surge of eHealth interventions (EHIs) presents unique opportunities to enhance cancer prevention and control by increasing intervention reach, adapting to various contextual conditions, being readily available where users live, work, and play, and tailoring information to patients' needs [4][5][6].eHealth research is a relatively young field that is rapidly growing. EHIs have been found to be effective in promoting change in behaviors, knowledge, self-

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control interventions: new technology, same methods and designs?

Sánchez

Rabin

Gaglio

et al. 2013

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While similar studies exist for diabetes management and smoking cessation, no known studies have looked at smartphone apps for weight control [10]. The study of smoking cessation apps also found that they contain serious omissions in the adherence to established guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Apps that were rated differently were discussed, and a final decision was made by the first author. This method of assessing content (i.e., developing an a priori index based on evidence-informed practices and then determining adherence to such practices) has been used by others conducting similar reviews of apps and Internet websites focused on tobacco cessation [10,29].…”

Section: Selecting Apps For Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Weight loss—there is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed practices?

Breton

Fuemmeler

Abroms

2011

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

260

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about how much smartphone apps for weight control adhere to evidence-informed practices. The aim of this study was to review and summarize the content of available weight control apps. Information on content, user rating, and price was extracted from iTunes on September 25, 2009. Apps (n=204) were coded for adherence to 13 evidence-informed practices for weight control. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups of apps based on endorsement practices. Only a small percentage of apps had five or more of the 13 practices (15%). Latent class analysis revealed three main types of apps: diet, physical activity, and weight journals (19%); dietary advice and journals (34%); and weight trackers (46%). User ratings were not associated with apps from these three classes. Many apps have insufficient evidenceinformed content. Research is needed that seeks to develop, improve, and evaluate these apps.

show abstract

“…However, fewer than 10% are successful [2], likely due to the underutilization of proven treatment strategies [2, 6,7]. Limited data exists regarding the content quality and intervention effectiveness of mobile applications (apps) for smoking cessation [8][9][10]. A recent content analysis of such apps revealed low levels of adherence to evidence-based treatment guidelines [9,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%