Cited by 18Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Improving Adherence to Smoking Cessation Treatment: Smoking Outcomes in a Web-based Randomized Trial

Open access
Graham, Amanda L, Papandonatos, George D, Cha, Sarah, Erar, Bahar, Amato, Michael S·2018·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background: Partial adherence in Internet smoking cessation interventions presents treatment and evaluation challenges. Increasing adherence may improve outcomes. Purpose: To present smoking outcomes from an Internet randomized trial of two strategies to encourage adherence to tobacco dependence treatment components: (i) a social network (SN) strategy to integrate smokers into an online community and (ii) free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). In addition to intent-to-treat analyses, we used novel statistical methods to distinguish the impact of treatment assignment from treatment utilization. Methods: A total of 5,290 current smokers on a cessation website (WEB) were randomized to WEB, WEB + SN, WEB + NRT, or WEB + SN + NRT. The main outcome was 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 3 and 9 months post-randomization. Adherence measures included self-reported medication use (meds), and website metrics of skills training (sk) and community use (comm). Inverse Probability of Retention Weighting and Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting jointly addressed dropout and treatment selection. Propensity weights were used to calculate Average Treatment effects on the Treated. Results: Treatment assignment analyses showed no effects on abstinence for either adherence strategy. Abstinence rates were 25.7%-32.2% among participants that used all three treatment components (sk+comm +meds).Treatment utilization analyses revealed that among such participants, sk+comm+meds yielded large percentage point increases in 3-month abstinence rates over sk alone across arms: WEB = 20.6 (95% CI = 10.8, 30.4), WEB + SN = 19.2 (95% CI = 11.1, 27.3), WEB + NRT = 13.1 (95% CI = 4.1, 22.0), and WEB + SN + NRT = 20.0 (95% CI = 12.2, 27.7). Conclusions: Novel propensity weighting approaches can serve as a model for establishing efficacy of Internet interventions and yield important insights about mechanisms. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT01544153.

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 · 10.1093/abm/kax023

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • It remains plausible that reduced engagement with the iCanQuit app contributed, at least partially, to the diminished odds of quitting smoking among participants with two or more mental health disorders.

    “Considering that engagement with an app-based intervention is a strong predictor of smoking cessation [49, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89], it remains plausible that reduced engagement with the iCanQuit app contributed, at least partially, to the diminished odds of quitting smoking among participants with two or more mental health disorders.”

    From Can an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Based Smartphone App Help Individuals with Mental Health Disorders Quit Smoking? (2024) · cites this paper as [86]

    The Discussion reports that community engagement combined with medication use was associated with significantly higher abstinence than skills training alone. But this was a website-based intervention, not an app, and strategies that increased engagement did not increase overall abstinence. The paper therefore supports a qualified link between engagement and quitting, not the broader claim that app engagement is a strong predictor; the iCanQuit explanation is the citing authors’ own inference. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Graham, A. L., Papandonatos, G. D., Cha, S., Erar, B., & Amato, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Truth Initiative (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Graham, Amanda L
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2018-02-02
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
331-341
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2792532026
Cited by
18
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (#1R01CA155489-01A1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
smoking cessation, medication adherence, online intervention, nicotine replacement therapy, online communities, social networks, abstinence, propensity score weighting, inverse probability of treatment weighting, average treatment effect on the treated, dropout, tobacco dependence
MeSH terms
Smoking Cessation Agents, Adult, Behavior Therapy, Combined Modality Therapy, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Compliance, Models, Statistical, Smoking Cessation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Internet, Social Networking, Tobacco Use Cessation Devices

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