Cited by 135Smoking Behavior and CessationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Does the addition of a supportive chatbot promote user engagement with a smoking cessation app? An experimental study

Open access
Perski, Olga, Crane, David, Beard, Emma, Brown, Jamie·2019·DIGITAL HEALTH

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess whether a version of the Smoke Free app with a supportive chatbot powered by artificial intelligence (versus a version without the chatbot) led to increased engagement and short-term quit success. Methods: Daily or non-daily smokers aged ≥18 years who purchased the ‘pro’ version of the app and set a quit date were randomly assigned (unequal allocation) to receive the app with or without the chatbot. The outcomes were engagement (i.e. total number of logins over the study period) and self-reported abstinence at a one-month follow-up. Unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial and logistic regression models were fitted to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for the associations of interest. Results: A total of 57,214 smokers were included (intervention: 9.3% (5339); control: 90.7% (51,875). The app with the chatbot compared with the standard version led to a 101% increase in engagement (IRR adj = 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.92–2.11, p < .001). The one-month follow-up rate was 10.6% (intervention: 19.9% (1,061/5,339); control: 9.7% (5,050/51,875). Smokers allocated to the intervention had greater odds of quit success (missing equals smoking: 844/5,339 vs. 3,704/51,875, OR adj = 2.38, 95% CI = 2.19–2.58, p < .001; follow-up only: 844/1,061 vs. 3,704/5,050, OR adj = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.16–1.61, p < .001). Conclusion: The addition of a supportive chatbot to a popular smoking cessation app more than doubled user engagement. In view of very low follow-up rates, there is low quality evidence that the addition also increased self-reported 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 · 10.1177/2055207619880676

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • A recent experimental study found that a supportive AI-powered chatbot doubled the engagement with a smoking cessation app and increased its effectiveness.

    “A recent experimental study found that a supportive AI-powered chatbot doubled the engagement with a smoking cessation app and increased its effectiveness [80].”

    From Influences on the Uptake of and Engagement With Health and Well-Being Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [80]

    The Conclusion says the AI-powered chatbot more than doubled engagement with the smoking cessation app. It describes only low-quality evidence of increased self-reported smoking cessation at one month, owing to very low follow-up rates; the unqualified claim that it increased effectiveness overstates that finding. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Of the 15 studies, 4 (27%) assessed efficacy of AI chatbots in smoking cessation.

    “Out of the 15 studies, 4 (27%) studies [23-25,27] assessed the efficacy of AI chatbots in smoking cessation.”
  • Perski et al reported that the intervention group had 2.44 times greater odds of abstinence at the 1-month follow-up than the control group (P<.001).

    “Perski et al [24] reported that the intervention group had 2.44 times greater odds of abstinence at the 1-month follow-up than the control group (P<.001).”
  • Chatbots may improve access to health care services, support health-promoting behavior change, and supplement educational programs.

    “Chatbots may improve access to health care services (e.g. [105]) and support health-promoting behavior change (e.g. [85]), and supplement educational programs [53].”

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
Perski, O., Crane, D., Beard, E., & Brown, J.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Perski, Olga
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Published
2019-01
Volume
5
Pages
2055207619880676-2055207619880676
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2977444880
Cited by
135
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
8.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (C1417/A22962)
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, chatbots, artificial intelligence, mobile health apps, user engagement, abstinence

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