Does addition of craving management tools in a stop smoking app improve quit rates among adult smokers? Results from BupaQuit pragmatic pilot randomised controlled trial
Objectives Delivery of craving management tools via smartphone applications (apps) may improve smoking cessation rates, but research on such programmes remains limited, especially in real-world settings. This study evaluated the effectiveness of adding craving management tools in a cessation app (Bu...
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Langue: | EN |
| Publié: |
SAGE Publishing
2021
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | https://doaj.org/article/4fa7aa01276d4b4ea55a516ccf7227d8 |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| Résumé: | Objectives Delivery of craving management tools via smartphone applications (apps) may improve smoking cessation rates, but research on such programmes remains limited, especially in real-world settings. This study evaluated the effectiveness of adding craving management tools in a cessation app (BupaQuit). Methods The study was a two-arm pragmatic pilot parallel randomised controlled trial, comparing a fully-automated BupaQuit app with craving management tool with a control app version without craving management tool. A total of 425 adult UK-based daily smokers were enrolled through open online recruitment (February 2015–March 2016), with no researcher involvement, and individually randomised within the app to the intervention ( n = 208) or control ( n = 217). The primary outcome was self-reported 14-day continuous abstinence assessed at 4-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 6-month point-prevalence and sustained abstinence, and app usage. The primary outcome was assessed with Fisher's exact test using intent to treat with those lost to follow-up counted as smoking. Participants were not reimbursed. Results Re-contact rates were 50.4% at 4 weeks and 40.2% at 6 months. There was no significant difference between intervention and control arms on the primary outcome (13.5% vs 15.7%; p = 0.58; relative risk = 0.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.54–1.36) or secondary cessation outcomes (6-month point prevalence: 14.4% vs 17.1%, p = 0.51; relative risk = 0.85, 95% confidence interval = 0.54–1.32; 6-month sustained: 11.1% vs 13.4%, p = 0.55; relative risk = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.50–1.38). Bayes factors supported the null hypothesis ( B [0, 0, 1.0986] = 0.20). Usage was similar across the conditions (mean/median logins: 9.6/4 vs 10.5/5; time spent: 401.8/202 s vs 325.8/209 s). Conclusions The addition of craving management tools did not affect cessation, and the limited engagement with the app may have contributed to this. |
|---|