Cited by 64Smoking Behavior and CessationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Mobile applications for the treatment of tobacco use and dependence

Open access
Vilardaga, Roger, Casellas-Pujol, Elisabet, McClernon, Joseph F., Garrison, Kathleen A.·2019·Current Addiction Reports

Abstract

Purpose of review Smoking remains a leading preventable cause of premature death in the world; thus, developing effective and scalable smoking cessation interventions is crucial. This review uses the Obesity-Related Behavioral Intervention Trials (ORBIT) model for early phase development of behavioral interventions to conceptually organize the state of research of mobile applications (apps) for smoking cessation, briefly highlight their technical and theory-based components, and describe available data on efficacy and effectiveness.Recent findings Our review suggests that there is a need for more programmatic efforts in the development of mobile applications for smoking cessation, though it is promising that more studies are reporting early phase research such as user-centered design. We identified and described the app features used to implement smoking cessation interventions, and found that the majority of the apps studied used a limited number of mechanisms of intervention delivery, though more effort is needed to link specific app features with clinical outcomes. Similar to earlier reviews, we found that few apps have yet been tested in large well-controlled clinical trials, although progress is being made in reporting transparency with protocol papers and clinical trial registration.Summary ORBIT is an effective model to summarize and guide research on smartphone apps for smoking cessation. Continued improvements in early phase research and app design should accelerate the progress of research in mobile apps for smoking cessation.

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/s40429-019-00248-0

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • Most studies have focused on self-help Apps, and scarce research has investigated the efficacy of using Apps as an adjunct to face-to-face interventions to quit smoking.

    “Most studies have focused on self-help Apps, and scarce research has investigated the efficacy of using Apps as an adjunct to face-to-face interventions to quit smoking (Vilardaga et al., 2019).”

    From Evaluation of effectiveness and acceptability of a psychological treatment for smoking cessation combined with a smartphone App: A pilot study (2024) · cites this paper as Vilardaga et al., 2019

    The Discussion section, “Few Studies Demonstrate Clinical Efficacy” (page unavailable), says most of the four Phase III or IV trials used an app as stand-alone treatment and that few studies tested app efficacy. This supports the claim’s general direction, but the stand-alone finding is limited to those trials; the review does not establish that most studies overall focused on self-help apps or specifically quantify research on apps adjunctive to face-to-face treatment. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Vilardaga R, Rizo J, Zeng E, User-centered design of Learn to Quit, a smoking cessation smartphone app for people with serious mental illness. J Med Internet Res Serious Games 2018; 6(1): e2. PMC5790963 29339346 Example of phase Ib study (ORBIT model) to refine the design characteristics of a smoking cessation app using cost-effective single case design methodology.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vilardaga, R., Casellas-Pujol, E., McClernon, J. F., & Garrison, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Garrison, Kathleen A.
Venue
Current Addiction Reports
Published
2019-05-09
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
86-97
ISSN
2196-2952 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944464025
Cited by
64
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Addiction Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Heart Association (14CRP18200010)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R00DA037276, K12DA000167)
  • National Cancer Institute (R21CA243911)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R34AT010365)
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
mobile health apps, smoking cessation, tobacco dependence, smartphone-based intervention, ORBIT model, app features, user-centered design, intervention mechanisms, clinical trial registration

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