Cited by 49Smoking Behavior and CessationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

A comparison of the characteristics of iOS and Android users of a smoking cessation app

Open access
Ubhi, Harveen Kaur, Kotz, Daniel, Michie, Susan, van Schayck, Onno C. P., West, Robert·2017·Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

iOS and Android smartphone users may differ in ways that affect their use and likelihood of success when using a smoking cessation application (app). If so, it may be necessary to take the device type (iOS and Android) into account when designing smoking cessation apps and in studies evaluating app effectiveness. How do socio-demographic and smoking characteristics, potentially relevant to engagement and cessation outcomes, of the SF28 app users differ between those using the iOS version and those using the Android version? Data were collected between October 2013 and April 2015. The variables measured were age, gender, social grade, time since the most recent quit attempt, choice of medication use (nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline), weekly expenditure on cigarettes, cigarettes smoked per day, reason for using the app and quit date set. The alpha was set to p < 0.006 to adjust for multiple comparisons. A total of 1368 users were included in the analysis. iOS and Android device users were similar in terms of age, social grade, weekly expenditure on cigarettes and cigarettes smoked per day. Compared with Android users, iOS users were more likely to have downloaded the app for a serious quit attempt (74.3 versus 69.6%, p = 0.001), made a quit attempt within the last 12 months (59.6 versus 45.9%, p < 0.001) and set their quit date on the day of registration (61 versus 46.2%, p < 0.001). They were less likely to have used stop-smoking medication to support their quit attempt (31.5 versus 48.6%, p < 0.001). Differences between smokers using the iOS version of smoking cessation apps and those using the Android version may influence quit success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13142-016-0455-z

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ubhi, H. K., Kotz, D., Michie, S., van Schayck, O. C. P., & West, R.
Affiliations
  • Cancer Research UK (GB)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Ubhi, Harveen Kaur
Venue
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Published
2017-02-06
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
166-171
ISSN
  • 1613-9860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-6716
OpenAlex
W2586119920
Cited by
49
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training (NCSCT)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
smoking cessation apps, iOS, Android, smartphone operating systems, nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, quit attempts, smoking cessation outcomes, mobile application design
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adult, Age Factors, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review