An experimental comparison of mobile texting programs to help young adults quit smoking

Systematic review and meta-analysis of text messaging interventions to support tobacco cessation

OBJECTIVE

To review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of text message-based interventions for smoking cessation, including the effects of dose (number of text messages) and concomitant use of behavioural or pharmacological interventions.

DATA SOURCES

We searched seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science), Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant publications for RCTs. Eligible studies included participants aged ≥15 years who smoked tobacco at enrolment.

STUDY SELECTION

One reviewer screened titles and abstracts and two reviewers independently screened full texts of articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

One of three reviewers independently extracted data on study and intervention characteristics and smoking abstinence rates using Qualtrics software.

DATA SYNTHESIS

30 of the 40 included studies reported higher rates of smoking cessation among those receiving text messaging interventions compared with comparators, but only 10 were statistically significant. A meta-analysis of seven RCTs found that participants receiving text messages were significantly more likely to quit smoking compared with participants in no/minimal intervention or 'usual care' conditions (risk ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.29, p <0.001). Three trials found no benefit from a higher dose of text messages on smoking cessation. Two trials that tested the added benefit of text messaging to pharmacotherapy reported outcomes in favour of adding text messaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that text messaging-based interventions are effective at promoting smoking cessation. Further research is required to establish if any additional benefit is gained from an increased number of text messages or concurrent pharmacotherapy or behavioural counselling.

Using Digital Technologies to Reach Tobacco Users Who Want to Quit: Evidence From the National Cancer Institute's Smokefree.gov Initiative

The rapid growth of smartphone ownership and broadband access has created new opportunities to reach smokers with cessation information and support using digital technologies. These technologies can both complement and be integrated with traditional support modalities such as telephone quitlines and 1-on-1 clinical cessation counseling. The National Cancer Institute's Smokefree.gov Initiative provides free, evidence-based cessation support to the public through a multimodal suite of digital interventions, including several mobile-optimized websites, text messaging programs, and 2 mobile applications. In addition to digital resources directed at the general population, the Smokefree.gov Initiative includes population-specific resources targeted to adolescents, women, military veterans, Spanish speakers, older adults, and other populations. This paper describes the reach and use of the Smokefree.gov Initiative's resources over a 5-year period between 2014 and 2018, including how users interact with the program's digital content in ways that facilitate engagement with live counseling support. Use of Smokefree.gov Initiative resources has grown steadily over time; in 2018 alone, approximately 7-8 million people accessed Smokefree.gov Initiative web- and mobile-based resources. Smokefree.gov Initiative utilization data show that people take advantage of the full range of technology tools and options offered as part of the Smokefree.gov Initiative's multiplatform intervention. The Smokefree.gov Initiative experience suggests that offering different, complementary technology options to meet the needs and preferences of smokers has the potential to meaningfully expand the reach of cessation treatment.

Mobile phone text messaging and app-based interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Mobile phone-based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face-to-face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource-poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone-based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six-month follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high-income countries. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that automated text messaging interventions were more effective than minimal smoking cessation support (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.00; I² = 71%; 13 studies, 14,133 participants). There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that text messaging added to other smoking cessation interventions was more effective than the other smoking cessation interventions alone (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I² = 0%, 4 studies, 997 participants). Two studies comparing text messaging with other smoking cessation interventions, and three studies comparing high- and low-intensity messaging, did not show significant differences between groups (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40; I² = 27%; 2 studies, 2238 participants; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; I² = 0%, 3 studies, 12,985 participants, respectively) but confidence intervals were wide in the former comparison. Five studies compared a smoking cessation smartphone app with lower-intensity smoking cessation support (either a lower-intensity app or non-app minimal support). We pooled the evidence and deemed it to be of very low certainty due to inconsistency and serious imprecision. It provided no evidence that smartphone apps improved the likelihood of smoking cessation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; I² = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that automated text message-based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate-certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.