Efficacy and Utilization of Smartphone Applications for Smoking Cessation among Low-income Adults: Secondary Analysis of the iCanQuit Randomized Trial
Abstract
Introduction: Evidence of digital interventions that are efficacious among low-income populations is scarce. In a secondary analysis, we determined the efficacy and utilization of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)-based smartphone application (iCanQuit) versus a U.S. Clinical Practice Guidelines (USCPG)-based smartphone application (QuitGuide) for smoking cessation in low-income adults enrolled in the iCanQuit randomized trial. Methods: Participants were randomized to receive iCanQuit (n=437) or QuitGuide (n=460) for 12-months. Consistent with the main trial, the primary outcome was self-reported complete-case 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 12-months. Secondary outcomes were 7-day PPA, missing-as-smoking and multiple imputation, prolonged abstinence, and cessation of all tobacco products at 12-months. Outcome data retention, utilization, and change in ACT-based processes were compared across arms. Results: Participants were recruited from 48 U.S. states. Retention rate was 88% at 12-months and did not differ by arm. At 12-months, iCanQuit was 1.46 times more efficacious than QuitGuide for smoking cessation (27% vs. 20%; OR=1.46 95% CI: 1.04, 2.06). Findings were similar for missing-as-smoking imputation (23% vs. 18%; OR=1.41 95% CI: 1.01, 1.97) and multiple imputation at 12-months (27% vs. 20%; OR=1.51 95% CI: 1.07, 2.14). Treatment utilization was significantly higher among iCanQuit than QuitGuide participants. Increased acceptance of cues to smoke…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 460 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.