Cargando…

Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smartphone applications (apps) offer a potentially cost-effective and a wide-reach aid to smoking cessation. In 2012, a content analysis of smoking cessation apps suggested that most apps did not adopt behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which according to previous research had...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ubhi, Harveen Kaur, Kotz, Daniel, Michie, Susan, van Schayck, Onno C.P., Sheard, David, Selladurai, Abiram, West, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26950256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.02.026
_version_ 1782425518005551104
author Ubhi, Harveen Kaur
Kotz, Daniel
Michie, Susan
van Schayck, Onno C.P.
Sheard, David
Selladurai, Abiram
West, Robert
author_facet Ubhi, Harveen Kaur
Kotz, Daniel
Michie, Susan
van Schayck, Onno C.P.
Sheard, David
Selladurai, Abiram
West, Robert
author_sort Ubhi, Harveen Kaur
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smartphone applications (apps) offer a potentially cost-effective and a wide-reach aid to smoking cessation. In 2012, a content analysis of smoking cessation apps suggested that most apps did not adopt behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which according to previous research had suggested would promote higher success rates in quitting smoking. This study examined whether or not, this situation had changed by 2014 for free smoking cessation apps available in the Apple App Store. It also compared the use of engagement and ease-of-use features between the two time points. METHODS: 137 free apps available in the Apple App Sore in 2014 were coded using an established framework for the presence or absence of evidence-based BCTs, and engagement and ease-of-use features. The results from the 2014 data were compared with a similar exercise conducted on 83 free apps available in 2012. RESULTS: BCTs supporting identity change, rewarding abstinence and advising on changing routines were less prevalent in 2014 as compared with 2012 (14.6% vs. 42.2%, 18.2% vs. 48.2%, and 17.5% vs. 24.1%, respectively). Advice on coping with cravings and advice on the use of stop-smoking medication were more prevalent in 2014 as compared with 2012 (27.7% vs. 20.5% and 14.6% vs 3.6%, respectively). The use of recognised engagement features was less common in 2014 than in 2012 (45.3% vs. 69.6%) while ease-of-use features remained very high (94.5% vs. 82.6%). CONCLUSION: There was little evidence of improvement in the use of evidence-based BCTs in free smoking cessation iPhone-based apps between 2012 and 2014.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4821061
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48210612016-07-01 Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014 Ubhi, Harveen Kaur Kotz, Daniel Michie, Susan van Schayck, Onno C.P. Sheard, David Selladurai, Abiram West, Robert Addict Behav Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smartphone applications (apps) offer a potentially cost-effective and a wide-reach aid to smoking cessation. In 2012, a content analysis of smoking cessation apps suggested that most apps did not adopt behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which according to previous research had suggested would promote higher success rates in quitting smoking. This study examined whether or not, this situation had changed by 2014 for free smoking cessation apps available in the Apple App Store. It also compared the use of engagement and ease-of-use features between the two time points. METHODS: 137 free apps available in the Apple App Sore in 2014 were coded using an established framework for the presence or absence of evidence-based BCTs, and engagement and ease-of-use features. The results from the 2014 data were compared with a similar exercise conducted on 83 free apps available in 2012. RESULTS: BCTs supporting identity change, rewarding abstinence and advising on changing routines were less prevalent in 2014 as compared with 2012 (14.6% vs. 42.2%, 18.2% vs. 48.2%, and 17.5% vs. 24.1%, respectively). Advice on coping with cravings and advice on the use of stop-smoking medication were more prevalent in 2014 as compared with 2012 (27.7% vs. 20.5% and 14.6% vs 3.6%, respectively). The use of recognised engagement features was less common in 2014 than in 2012 (45.3% vs. 69.6%) while ease-of-use features remained very high (94.5% vs. 82.6%). CONCLUSION: There was little evidence of improvement in the use of evidence-based BCTs in free smoking cessation iPhone-based apps between 2012 and 2014. Elsevier Science 2016-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4821061/ /pubmed/26950256 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.02.026 Text en © 2016 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ubhi, Harveen Kaur
Kotz, Daniel
Michie, Susan
van Schayck, Onno C.P.
Sheard, David
Selladurai, Abiram
West, Robert
Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014
title Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014
title_full Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014
title_short Comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014
title_sort comparative analysis of smoking cessation smartphone applications available in 2012 versus 2014
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26950256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.02.026
work_keys_str_mv AT ubhiharveenkaur comparativeanalysisofsmokingcessationsmartphoneapplicationsavailablein2012versus2014
AT kotzdaniel comparativeanalysisofsmokingcessationsmartphoneapplicationsavailablein2012versus2014
AT michiesusan comparativeanalysisofsmokingcessationsmartphoneapplicationsavailablein2012versus2014
AT vanschayckonnocp comparativeanalysisofsmokingcessationsmartphoneapplicationsavailablein2012versus2014
AT shearddavid comparativeanalysisofsmokingcessationsmartphoneapplicationsavailablein2012versus2014
AT selladuraiabiram comparativeanalysisofsmokingcessationsmartphoneapplicationsavailablein2012versus2014
AT westrobert comparativeanalysisofsmokingcessationsmartphoneapplicationsavailablein2012versus2014