Outcomes and Device Usage for Fully Automated Internet Interventions Designed for a Smartphone or Personal Computer: The MobileQuit Smoking Cessation Randomized Controlled Trial
Outcomes and Device Usage for Fully Automated Internet Interventions Designed for a Smartphone or Personal Computer: The MobileQuit Smoking Cessation Randomized Controlled Trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/13290
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-06
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Seeley, John R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Danaher, Brian G.;Tyler, Milagra S.;Seeley, John R.
背景资料：许多最佳实践戒烟计划使用专为非移动个人计算机（台式计算机，笔记本电脑和平板电脑）设计的全自动互联网干预。相对较少的戒烟干预措施是专门为移动的设备如智能手机设计的。目的：本研究探讨了两种基于互联网的最佳实践戒烟干预措施的有效性和使用模式。方法：总的来说，1271名想戒烟的吸烟者被随机分配到（1）MobileQuit（专为移动设备设计，并限制其使用，包括文本消息和嵌入式隧道信息架构）或（2）退出在线（专为非移动台式机或平板电脑设计，不包括文本消息，并使用灵活的混合矩阵分层信息架构）。主要结果包括在3个月和6个月随访评估时自我报告的7天时点戒烟率。程序访问进行了不引人注目的评估（频率，持续时间，和用于访问的设备）。结果：显着更多的MobileQuit参与者比QuitOnline参与者戒烟。使用意向性治疗分析，3个月时的戒烟率为20.7%（131/633）vs 11.4%（73/638），6个月时为24.6%（156/633）vs 19.3%（123/638），3个月和6个月时分别为15.8%（100/633）vs 8.8%（56/638）。使用完整案例，MobileQuit的优势在3个月时（45.6% [131/287] vs 28.4% [73/257]）以及合并的3和6个月时（40.5% [100/247] vs 25.9% [56/216]）显著，但在6个月时（43.5% [156/359] vs 34.4% [123/329]）不显著。这两种情况下的参与者都报告说他们的计划是有用的和有帮助的。MobileQuit参与者访问他们的程序的频率是QuitOnline参与者的5倍。与MobileQuit的内置限制一致，89.46%（8820/9859）的访问是在预期的移动终端上进行的，而47.72%（691/1448）的QuitOnline访问使用了预期的非移动终端。在MobileQuit参与者中，76.0%（459/604）仅使用预期的移动终端，23.0%（139/604）同时使用移动的和非移动的设备，0.1%（6/604）仅使用非移动的设备。在QuitOnline参与者中，31.3%（137/438）仅使用预期的非移动的设备，16.7%（73/438）同时使用移动的和非移动的设备，52.1%（228/438）仅使用移动的设备（主要是智能手机）。这项研究提供了证据，优化干预设计的智能手机超过一个通常的护理互联网的方法，其中干预措施的设计主要是用于非移动设备，例如台式计算机、膝上型计算机。或片剂。我们建议，未来的互联网干预措施应该设计为在用户喜欢的所有设备（多屏幕）上使用。我们预测，为移动的与非移动的设备设计互联网干预措施的方法将被互联网干预措施所取代，互联网干预措施使用一个单一的Web应用程序，旨在响应（适应不同的屏幕尺寸和操作系统），跨设备共享用户数据，体现普遍的信息架构，并辅以短信通知。
Background: Many best practice smoking cessation programs use fully automated internet interventions designed for nonmobile personal computers (desktop computers, laptops, and tablets). A relatively small number of smoking cessation interventions have been designed specifically for mobile devices such as smartphones.Objective: This study examined the efficacy and usage patterns of two internet-based best practices smoking cessation interventions.Methods: Overall, 1271 smokers who wanted to quit were randomly assigned to (1) MobileQuit (designed for-and constrained its use to-mobile devices, included text messaging, and embodied tunnel information architecture) or (2) QuitOnline (designed for nonmobile desktop or tablet computers, did not include text messages, and used a flexible hybrid matrix-hierarchical information architecture). Primary outcomes included self-reported 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence at 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Program visits were unobtrusively assessed (frequency, duration, and device used for access).Results: Significantly more MobileQuit participants than QuitOnline participants reported quitting smoking. Abstinence rates using intention-to-treat analysis were 20.7% (131/633) vs 11.4% (73/638) at 3 months, 24.6% (156/633) vs 19.3% (123/638) at 6 months, and 15.8% (100/633) vs 8.8% (56/638) for both 3 and 6 months. Using Complete Cases, MobileQuit's advantage was significant at 3 months (45.6% [131/287] vs 28.4% [73/257]) and the combined 3 and 6 months (40.5% [100/247] vs 25.9% [56/216]) but not at 6 months (43.5% [156/359] vs 34.4% [123/329]). Participants in both conditions reported their program was usable and helpful. MobileQuit participants visited their program 5 times more frequently than did QuitOnline participants. Consistent with the MobileQuit's built-in constraint, 89.46% (8820/9859) of its visits were made on an intended mobile device, whereas 47.72% (691/1448) of visits to QuitOnline used an intended nonmobile device. Among MobileQuit participants, 76.0% (459/604) used only an intended mobile device, 23.0% (139/604) used both mobile and nonmobile devices, and 0.1% (6/604) used only a nonmobile device. Among QuitOnline participants, 31.3% (137/438) used only the intended nonmobile devices, 16.7% (73/438) used both mobile and nonmobile devices, and 52.1% (228/438) used only mobile devices (primarily smartphones).Conclusions: This study provides evidence for optimizing intervention design for smartphones over a usual care internet approach in which interventions are designed primarily for use on nonmobile devices such as desktop computers, laptops. or tablets. We propose that future internet interventions should be designed for use on all of the devices (multiple screens) that users prefer. We forecast that the approach of designing internet interventions for mobile vs nonmobile devices will be replaced by internet interventions that use a single Web app designed to be responsive (adapt to different screen sizes and operating systems), share user data across devices, embody a pervasive information architecture, and complemented by text message notifications.