Automated Digital Interventions and Smoking Cessation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Relating Efficiency to a Psychological Theory of Intervention Perspective
Leihao Sha,Xia Yang,Renhao Deng,Wen Wang,YuJie Tao,HaiLing Cao,Qianshu Ma,Hao Wang,Yirou Nie,Siqi Leng,Qiuyue Lv,Xiaojing Li,Huiyao Wang,Yajing Meng,Jiajun Xu,Andrew J Greenshaw,Tao Li,Wan-jun Guo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/38206
IF: 7.076
2022-11-17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Abstract:Background: Smoking remains a highly significant preventable global public health problem. In this context, digital interventions offer great advantages in terms of a lack of biological side effects, possibility of automatic delivery, and consequent human resource savings relative to traditional interventions. Such interventions have been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but have not been systematically reviewed with the inclusion of text-based and multiplatform-based interventions. In addition, this area has not been evaluated from the perspective of the psychological theoretical basis of intervention. Objective: The aim of this paper is to assess the efficiency of digital interventions in RCT studies of smoking cessation and to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies used for digital interventions. Methods: An electronic search of RCTs was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library by June 30, 2021. Eligible studies had to compare automated digital intervention (ADI) to the use of a self-help guideline or no intervention. Participants were current smokers (aged 16 years or older). As the main outcome, abstinence after endpoint was extracted from the studies. Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the efficiency of ADIs. Metaregressions were conducted to assess the relationship between intervention theory and effectiveness. Results: A total of 19 trials (15,472 participants) were included in the analysis. The overall abstinence rate (95% CI) at the endpoint was 17.8% (17.0-18.7). The overall risk ratio of the intervention group compared to the controls at the endpoint was 17.8% (17.0-18.7). Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2) suggested that most of the studies had a low risk of bias (56.3%). Psychological theory–related constructs or predictors, which refer to other theory-based concepts (rather than only behavioral theory) such as craving or anxiety, are associated with effectiveness. Conclusions: This study found that ADI had a clear positive effect compared to self-help guidelines or to no intervention, and effectiveness was associated with theory-related constructs or predictors. ADIs should be promoted by policy makers and clinical practitioners to address the huge gap between the need for smoking cessation and availability of traditional treatment resources. Possible increases in ADI efficiency may be achieved by optimally integrating psychotherapeutic theories and techniques. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021256593; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256593
health care sciences & services,medical informatics