Abstract
Background
Most smokers are ambivalent about quitting—they want to quit someday, but not now. Interventions are needed that can engage ambivalent smokers, build their motivation for quitting, and support future quit attempts. Mobile health (mHealth) apps offer a cost-effective platform for such interventions, but research is needed to inform their optimal design and assess their acceptability, feasibility, and potential effectiveness.
Objective
This study aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact of a novel mHealth app for smokers who want to quit smoking someday but are ambivalent about quitting in the near term.
Methods
We enrolled adults across the United States who smoked more than 10 cigarettes a day and were ambivalent about quitting (n=60). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 versions of the GEMS app: standard care (SC) versus enhanced care (EC). Both had a similar design and identical evidence-based, best-practice smoking cessation advice and resources, including the ability to earn free nicotine patches. EC also included a series of exercises called experiments designed to help ambivalent smokers clarify their goals, strengthen their motivation, and learn important behavioral skills for changing smoking behavior without making a commitment to quit. Outcomes were analyzed using automated app data and self-reported surveys at 1 and 3 months post enrollment.
Results
Participants who installed the app (57/60, 95%) were largely female, White, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and highly nicotine dependent. As expected, key outcomes trended in favor of the EC group. Compared to SC users, EC participants had greater engagement (mean sessions 19.9 for EC vs 7.3 for SC). An intentional quit attempt was reported by 39.3% (11/28) of EC users and 37.9% (11/29) of SC users. Seven-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at the 3-month follow-up was reported by 14.7% (4/28) of EC users and 6.9% (2/29) of SC users. Among participants who earned a free trial of nicotine replacement therapy based on their app usage, 36.4% (8/22) of EC participants and 11.1% (2/18) of SC participants requested the treatment. A total of 17.9% (5/28) of EC and 3.4% (1/29) of SC participants used an in-app feature to access a free tobacco quitline. Other metrics were also promising. EC participants completed an average of 6.9 (SD 3.1) out of 9 experiments. Median helpfulness ratings for completed experiments ranged from 3 to 4 on a 5-point scale. Finally, satisfaction with both app versions was very good (mean 4.1 on a 5-point Likert scale) and 95.3% (41/43) of all respondents would recommend their app version to others.
Conclusions
Ambivalent smokers were receptive to the app-based intervention, but the EC version, which combined best-practice cessation advice with self-paced, experiential exercises, was associated with greater use and evidence of behavior change. Further development and evaluation of the EC program is warranted.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04560868; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04560868