Two studies compared mobile applications with pharmacological or psychosocial treatments with the same treatments alone [R3], [R4]. In those studies, mobile applications increased successful abstinence at 6-12 months follow-up. Results may not apply to mobile applications other than those used in these two studies. Two review articles [R1], [R2] compared mobile applications to other behavioral interventions or lower-intensity mobile applications and found no effect.
Description of the included studies
Reference | Study type | Population | Intervention and comparison | Outcomes | Risk of bias |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
«Whittaker R, McRobbie H, Bullen C, ym. Mobile phon...»1 | SR/MA | Current smokers of any age. | Mobile application vs. lower intensity application or other low intensity support (including printed materials and encouragement to use support services) | Abstinence at six months or longer. Measured either by carbon monoxide test or by survey. | Low risk of bias in 3/5 studies, 1 study had incomplete outcome data, and 1 study unclear allocation concealment. Meta-analysis included heterogenous interventions in both intervention and comparison groups. |
«Guo YQ, Chen Y, Dabbs AD, ym. The Effectiveness of...»2 | SR/MA | Current adult smokers | Mobile application vs. any other type of supportive smoking cessation. | 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate or a continuous abstinence rate | Some concerns. Loss to follow-up was often high. Meta-analysis included heterogenous interventions in both intervention and comparison groups. |
«Houston TK, Chen J, Amante DJ, ym. Effect of Techn...»3 | RCT | Current adult smokers | Take a break mobile application + nicotine replacement therapy vs. nicotine replacement therapy alone | carbon monoxide level-verified smoking cessation at 6-month follow-up | Loss to follow-up ≈25%, otherwise low risk of bias |
«Carrasco-Hernandez L, Jódar-Sánchez F, Núñez-Benju...»4 | RCT | Current adult smokers | Mobile application + psychopharmacological treatment vs. psychopharmacological treatment alone | carbon monoxide level-verified smoking cessation at 1-year follow-up | Low risk of bias |
RCT = randomized controlled trial; SR = systematic review; MA = meta-analysis
Additional comments for included studies
Reference | Comments |
---|---|
«Whittaker R, McRobbie H, Bullen C, ym. Mobile phon...»1 | The risk of bias was mostly low. Heterogenous interventions in the meta-analysis limit the applicability of the results. Additionally, mobile applications were only compared to other behavioral interventions, which limits making conclusions of mobile applications compared to no behavioral intervention. |
«Guo YQ, Chen Y, Dabbs AD, ym. The Effectiveness of...»2 | There were some concerns in the risk of bias assessment. Same limitations in applicability of results as in the Cochrane review. |
Results
Outcome 1 Abstinence at 6-12 months.
Reference | Number of studies and number of patients (I/C) | Follow-up time | Absolute number of events (%) I | Absolute number of events (%) C | Relative effect (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
«Whittaker R, McRobbie H, Bullen C, ym. Mobile phon...»1 | 5 studies, 3079 patients (I 1535/C 1544) | 6 months | 111 | 119 | 1.00 (0.66-1.52) |
«Guo YQ, Chen Y, Dabbs AD, ym. The Effectiveness of...»2 | 9 studies, 12,967 patients | 6-12 months | Not reported | Not reported | 1.25 (0.99-1.56) |
«Houston TK, Chen J, Amante DJ, ym. Effect of Techn...»3 | I 160 / C 171 | 6 months | 28 | 17 | HR 1.92 (1.01-3.68) |
«Carrasco-Hernandez L, Jódar-Sánchez F, Núñez-Benju...»4 | I 120 / C 120 | 12 months | 27.5% | 15.0% | OR 2.15 (1.13-4.08) |
Level of evidence: low Assess the risk of bias and delete irrelevant sources of bias: The quality of evidence is downgraded due to indirectness. |
I = intervention; C = comparison; CI = confidence interval