Cited by 78Smoking Behavior and CessationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

The effectiveness of smartphone app-based interventions for assisting smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Guo, Yi-Qiang, Chen, Yuling, Dabbs, Annette DeVito, Wu, Ying·2023·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND Smoking is a leading cause of premature death globally. Quitting smoking reduces the risk of all-cause mortality by 11%-34%. Smartphone app–based smoking cessation (SASC) interventions have been developed and are widely used. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of smartphone-based interventions for smoking cessation is currently equivocal. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of smartphone app–based interventions for smoking cessation. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of smartphone interventions for smoking cessation based on the Cochrane methodology. An electronic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases to identify published papers in English or Chinese (there was no time limit regarding the publication date). The outcome was the smoking abstinence rate, which was either a 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate or a continuous abstinence rate. RESULTS A total of 9 randomized controlled trials involving 12,967 adults were selected for the final analysis. The selected studies from 6 countries (the United States, Spain, France, Switzerland, Canada, and Japan) were included in the meta-analysis between 2018 and 2022. Pooled effect sizes (across all follow-up time points) revealed no difference between the smartphone app group and the comparators (standard care, SMS text messaging intervention, web-based intervention, smoking cessation counseling, or apps as placebos without real function; odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95% CI 0.99-1.56, P=.06, I2=73.6%). Based on the subanalyses, 6 trials comparing smartphone app interventions to comparator interventions reported no significant differences in effectiveness (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85-1.26, P=.74, I2=57.1%). However, the 3 trials that evaluated the combination of smartphone interventions combined with pharmacotherapy compared to pharmacotherapy alone found higher smoking abstinence rates in the combined intervention (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.38-2.33, P=.74, I2=7.4%). All SASC interventions with higher levels of adherence were significantly more effective (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.84, P<.001, I2=24.5%). CONCLUSIONS This systematic review and meta-analysis did not support the effectiveness of delivering smartphone-based interventions alone to achieve higher smoking abstinence rates. However, the efficacy of smartphone-based interventions increased when combined with pharmacotherapy-based smoking cessation approaches. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42021267615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=267615

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 · 10.2196/43242

Cites

35 of 35 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, Y.-Q., Chen, Y., Dabbs, A. D., & Wu, Y.
Affiliations
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Wu, Ying
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2023-04-20
Volume
25
Pages
e43242
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4323911764
Cited by
78
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • China Scholarship Council
  • Beijing Postdoctoral Science Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
smoking cessation, mobile application, mobile health intervention, pharmacotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, adherence, text messaging intervention, online intervention, smoking cessation counseling, digital health interventions, tobacco control, tobacco regulation, tobacco control education
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adult, Humans, Smoking, Health Behavior, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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