Smoker profiles and their influence on smokers’ intention to use a digital decision aid aimed at the uptake of evidence-based smoking cessation tools: An explorative study

Abstract

Objectives Evidence-based smoking cessation support tools (EBSTs) can double the quitting chances, but uptake among smokers is low. A digital decision aid (DA) could help smokers choose an EBST in concordance with their values and preferences, but it is unclear which type of smokers are interested in a digital DA. We hypothesized that smokers’ general decision-making style (GDMS) could be used to identify early adopters. This study therefore aimed to identify smoker profiles based on smokers’ GDMS and investigate these profiles’ association with intention to use a digital DA. Design A cross-sectional dataset (N = 200 smokers intending to quit) was used to perform a hierarchical cluster analysis based on smokers’ GDMS scores. Methods Clusters were compared on demographic and socio-cognitive variables. Mediation analyses were conducted to see if the relationship between cluster membership and intention was mediated through socio-cognitive variables (e.g., attitude). Results Two clusters were identified; “ Avoidant Regretters ” (n = 134) were more avoidant, more regretful and tended to depend more on others in their decision making, while “ Intuitive Non-regretters ” (n = 66) were more spontaneous and intuitive in their decision making. Cluster membership was significantly related to intention to use a DA, with “ Avoidant Regretters ” being more interested. Yet, this association ceased to be significant when corrected for socio-cognitive variables (e.g., attitude). This indicates that cluster membership affected intention via socio-cognitive variables. Conclusions The GDMS can be used to identify smokers who are interested in a digital DA early on. As such, the GDMS can be used to tailor recruitment and DA content.

Informed decision making on the uptake of evidence-based smoking cessation assistance: A needs assessment among end users and experts to inform decision aid development

“…For the interview study, we recruited among members from a national research panel (Flycatcher Internet Research, 2018) that participated in an earlier study about smoking cessation assistance decision making (Gültzow, Smit, Hudales, Dirksen, et al, 2020). We employed purposeful sampling to invite a heterogenic sample using the following four characteristics: (1) Intention to use the proposed online DA (Ajzen, 1991), (2) decision-making style as measured by the General Decision Making Style measurement (Scott & Bruce, 1995), (3) geographical location and (4) reported gender identity (i.e., man, woman and non-binary).…”

“…All interviews were conducted by telephone and recorded, for which participants gave their consent after a brief explanation about the study and the procedure. Prior to the actual interview, participants received: (1) A description of the different decision-making styles based on the aforementioned earlier study (see Gültzow, Smit, Hudales, Dirksen, et al (2020) for more information), (2) information about which cessation assistance tools are evidence-based (e.g., behavioural support) and which are not (e.g., acupuncture), and (3) DA mock-up screenshots to give an indication of what an online DA to support people in making an informed decision about the use of cessation assistance could look like. Participants received a € 30 ($ 32,63) gift card for their participation.…”

When informed decision making meets health promotion

“…For the interview study, we recruited among members from a national research panel [171] that participated in an earlier study about smoking cessation assistance decision making [198]. We only included individuals motivated to quit smoking (or that quitted smoking recently) and chose not to include other individuals, such as those who need to stop smoking while not wanting to (e.g., due to health reasons).…”

“…Individuals not interested in quitting smoking presumably would not be interested in a self-administered smoking cessation DA and might in fact need another form of intervention before they use a DA, e.g., motivational interviewing [199]. We employed purposeful sampling to invite a heterogenic sample using the following four characteristics: (1) intention to use the proposed online DA [73], (2) decision-making style as measured by the General Decision-Making Style measurement [160] (i.e., we aimed for a balance between participants who were more regretful, avoidant, and dependent in their decision making and participants who tended to make spontaneous and intuitive decisions; for more information see [198]), (3) geographical location, and (4) reported gender identity (i.e., man, woman, and non-binary participants). Interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached [200], i.e., when three consecutive interviews did not generate new knowledge related to the research objectives.…”

“…106 based on the aforementioned earlier study (see [198] for more information), (2) information about which cessation assistance tools are evidence based (e.g., behavioral support) and which are not (e.g., acupuncture), and (3) DA mock-up screenshots to give an indication of what a self-administered online DA to support people in making an informed decision about the use of cessation assistance could look like. During the interviews, participants were asked whether they had actually read and viewed these materials and if not, were given the opportunity to do so on the spot or were given a verbal summary of all materials (depending on the circumstances).…”