Background There is a dual need for (1) innovative theory-based smartphone applications for smoking cessation and (2) controlled trials to evaluate their efficacy. Accordingly, this study tested the feasibility, acceptability, preliminary efficacy, and mechanism of behavioral change of an innovative smartphone-delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) application for smoking cessation versus an application following US Clinical Practice Guidelines. Method Adult participants were recruited nationally into the double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial (N = 196) that compared smartphone-delivered ACT for smoking cessation application (SmartQuit) with the National Cancer Institute's application for smoking cessation (QuitGuide). Results We recruited 196 participants in two months. SmartQuit participants opened their application an average of 37.2 times, as compared to 15.2 times for QuitGuide participants (p <.0001). The overall quit rates were 13% in SmartQuit vs. 8% in QuitGuide (OR=2.7; 95% CI=0.8-10.3). Consistent with ACT's theory of change, among those scoring low (below the median) on acceptance of cravings at baseline (n = 88), the quit rates were 15% in SmartQuit vs. 8% in QuitGuide (OR=2.9; 95% CI=0.6-20.7). Conclusions ACT is feasible to deliver by smartphone application and shows higher engagement and promising quit rates compared to an application that follows US Clinical Practice Guidelines. As results were limited by the pilot design (e.g., small sample), a full-scale efficacy trial is now needed.

Objective: Web-based smoking cessation interventions have high reach, but low effectiveness. To address this problem, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of the first web-based acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention for smoking cessation. The aims were to determine design feasibility, user receptivity, effect on 30-day point prevalence quit rate at 3 months post-randomization, and mediation by ACT theory-based processes of acceptance.Methods: Adult participants were recruited nationally into the double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial (N = 222), which compared web-based ACT for smoking cessation (WebQuit.org) with the National Cancer Institute's Smokefree.gov-the U.S. national standard for web-based smoking cessation interventions.results: We recruited 222 participants in 10 weeks. Participants spent significantly longer on the ACT WebQuit.org site per login (18.98 vs. 10.72 min; p = .001) and were more satisfied with the site (74% vs. 42%; p =.002). Using available follow-up data, more than double the fraction of participants in the ACT WebQuit.org arm had quit smoking at the 3-month follow-up (23% vs. 10%; OR = 3.05; 95% CI = 1.01-9.32; p = .050). Eighty percent of this effect was mediated by ACT theory-based increases in total acceptance of physical, cognitive, and emotional cues to smoke (p < .001). Conclusions:The trial design was feasible. Compared with Smokefree.gov, ACT had higher user receptivity and short-term cessation, and strong evidence of theory-based mechanisms of change. While results were promising, they were limited by the pilot design (e.g., limited follow-up), and thus a full-scale efficacy trial is now being conducted.

IMPORTANCE Smoking is a leading cause of premature death globally. Smartphone applications for smoking cessation are ubiquitous and address barriers to accessing traditional treatments, yet there is limited evidence for their efficacy.OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of a smartphone application for smoking cessation based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs a National Cancer Institute smoking cessation application based on US clinical practice guidelines (USCPG). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA 2-group, stratified, double-blind, individually randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 27, 2017, to September 28, 2018, among 2415 adult cigarette smokers (n = 1214 for the ACT-based smoking cessation application group and n = 1201 for the USCPG-based smoking cessation application group) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month postrandomization follow-up. The study was prespecified in the trial protocol. Follow-up data collection started on August 26, 2017, and ended at the last randomized participant's 12-month follow-up survey on December 23, 2019. Data were analyzed from February 25 to April 3, 2020. The primary analysis was performed on a complete-case basis, with intent-to-treat missing as smoking and multiple imputation sensitivity analyses.INTERVENTIONS iCanQuit, an ACT-based smoking cessation application, which taught acceptance of smoking triggers, and the National Cancer Institute QuitGuide, a USCPG-based smoking cessation application, which taught avoidance of smoking triggers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were 7-day PPA at 12 months after randomization, prolonged abstinence, 30-day and 7-day PPA at 3 and 6 months after randomization, missing data imputed with multiple imputation or coded as smoking, and cessation of all tobacco products (including e-cigarettes) at 12 months after randomization.RESULTS Participants were 2415 adult cigarette smokers (1700 women [70.4%]; 1666 White individuals [69.0%] and 868 racial/ethnic minorities [35.9%]; mean [SD] age at enrollment, 38.2 [10.9] years) from all 50 US states. The 3-month follow-up data retention rate was 86.7% ( 2093), the 6-month retention rate was 88.4% (2136), and the 12-month retention rate was 87.2% (2107). For the primary outcome of 30-day PPA at the 12-month follow-up, iCanQuit participants had 1.49 times higher odds of quitting smoking compared with QuitGuide participants (28.2% [293 of 1040] vs 21.1% [225 of 1067]; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.22-1.83; P < .001). Effect sizes were very similar and statistically significant for 7-day PPA at the 12-month follow-up (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.63; P = .002), prolonged abstinence at the 12-month follow-up (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.45-2.76; P < .001), abstinence from all tobacco products (including e-cigarettes) at the 12-month follow-up (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99; P < .001), 30-day PPA at 3-month follow-up (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68-2.89; P < .001), 30-day PPA at 6-month f...

Background Currently, there are over 400 smoking cessation smartphone apps available, downloaded an estimated 780,000 times per month. No prior studies have examined how individuals engage with specific features of cessation apps and whether use of these features is associated with quitting. Objectives Using data from a pilot trial of a novel smoking cessation app, we examined: (1) the ten most-used app features, and (2) prospective associations between feature usage and quitting. Methods Participants (n=76) were from the experimental arm of a randomized, controlled pilot trial of an app for smoking cessation called “SmartQuit,” which includes elements of both Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and traditional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Utilization data were automatically tracked during the 8-week treatment phase. Thirty-day point prevalence smoking abstinence was assessed at 60-day follow-up. Results The most-used features--quit plan, tracking, progress, and sharing--were mostly CBT. Only two of the ten most-used features were prospectively associated with quitting: viewing the quit plan (p=.03) and tracking practice of letting urges pass (p=.03). Tracking ACT skill practice was used by fewer participants (n=43) but was associated with cessation (p=.01). Conclusions In this exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons, viewing a quit plan (CBT) as well as tracking practice of letting urges pass (ACT) were both appealing to app users and associated with successful quitting. Aside from these features, there was little overlap between a feature's popularity and its prospective association with quitting. Tests of causal associations between feature usage and smoking cessation are now needed.

Objectives Despite recent advances in understanding the causes and treatment of nicotine dependence among individuals with psychiatric disorders, smoking among individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) has received little attention. The goal of this review is to synthesize the literature on the epidemiology, consequences, and treatment of smoking and nicotine dependence among individuals with BD and to delineate a future research agenda. Methods We conducted a PubMed search of English-language articles using the search terms “bipolar disorder,” “mania,” “tobacco,” “nicotine,” “and “smoking,” followed by a manual search of the literature cited in the identified articles. Articles were chosen by the authors on the basis of their relevance to the topic areas covered in this selective review. Results Adults with BD are 2 to 3 times more likely to have started smoking and, on the basis of epidemiological data, may be less likely to initiate and/or maintain smoking abstinence than individuals without psychiatric disorders. Smoking cessation is achievable for individuals with BD, but challenges such as chronic mood dysregulation, high prevalence of alcohol and drug use, more severe nicotine dependence, and limited social support can make quitting more difficult. Effective treatments for tobacco cessation are available, but no controlled trials in smokers with BD have been conducted. Conclusions Cigarette smoking is a prevalent and devastating addiction among individuals with BD and should be addressed by mental health providers. Additional research on the mechanisms of, and optimal treatment for, smoking and nicotine dependence in this population is desperately needed.

Background The first randomized trial of a smartphone application (app) for adult smoking cessation (SmartQuit 1.0) revealed key features that predict cessation. These findings guided the revision of this Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (ACT)-based application (SmartQuit 2.0), which was primarily tested to examine participant receptivity, short-term cessation and reduction, and the relationship between program completion, smoking cessation and reduction. Secondarily, outcomes were descriptively compared with the SmartQuit1.0 trial. Method Adult participants (78% female, 25% with high school or less education, 30% unemployed) were recruited into the single-arm pilot trial (N = 99) of SmartQuit 2.0 with a two-month follow-up (85% retention). Results Regarding receptivity, 84% of participants were satisfied with SmartQuit 2.0 (vs. 59% for SmartQuit1.0), 73% would recommend it to a friend (vs. 48% for SmartQuit1.0), 81% found the ACT exercises useful for quitting (vs. 44% for SmartQuit1.0). At the 2-month follow-up, the quit rates were 21% for 7-day point prevalence (vs. 23% for SmartQuit1.0), 11% for 30-day point prevalence (vs. 13% for SmartQuit1.0), and 75% of participants reduced their smoking frequency (vs. 57% for SmartQuit1.0). Among program completers (24% of total sample), the quit rates were 33% for 7-day point prevalence, 28% for 30-day point prevalence, and 88% of participants reduced their smoking frequency. Conclusions The revised app had high user receptivity, modest quit rates, and high smoking reduction rates. Program completion may be key to boosting the app’s effectiveness.

Web-based behavioral interventions for substance use are being developed at a rapid pace, yet there is a dearth of information regarding the most effective methods for recruiting participants into web-based intervention trials. In this paper, we describe our successful recruitment of participants into a pilot trial of web-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for smoking cessation and compare traditional and web-based methods of recruitment in terms of their effects on baseline participant characteristics, association with study retention and treatment outcome, yield, and cost-effectiveness. Over a 10-week period starting June 15, 2010, we recruited 222 smokers for a web-based smoking cessation study using a variety of recruitment methods. The largest portion of randomized participants were recruited through Google AdWords (36%), followed by medical Internet media (23%), standard media (14%), word of mouth (12%), broadcast emails (11%), and social media (6%). Recruitment source was not related to baseline participant characteristics, 3-month data retention, or 30-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at the 3-month outcome assessment. Cost per randomized participant ranged from $5.27/participant for word of mouth to $172.76/participant for social media, with a mean cost of $42.48/participant. Our diversified approach to recruitment, including both traditional and web-based methods, enabled timely enrollment of participants into the study. Because there was no evidence of a substantive difference in baseline characteristics, retention, or outcomes based on recruitment channel, the yield and cost-effectiveness of recruitment methods may be the more critical considerations in developing a feasible recruitment plan for a web-based smoking cessation intervention study.

Broad adoption of lung cancer screening may inadvertently lead to negative population health outcomes if it is perceived as a substitute for smoking cessation.OBJECTIVE To understand views on smoking cessation from current smokers in the context of being offered lung cancer screening as a routine service in primary care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSAs an ancillary study to the launch of a lung cancer screening program at 7 sites in the Veterans Health Administration, 45 in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews about health beliefs related to smoking and lung cancer screening were administered from May 29 to September 22, 2014, by telephone to 37 current smokers offered lung cancer screening by their primary care physician. Analysis was conducted from June 15, 2014, to March 29, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESAttitudes and perceptions about the importance of smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening.RESULTS Lung cancer screening prompted most current smokers to reflect for the first time on what smoking means for their current and future health. However, 17 of 35 (49%) participants described mechanisms whereby screening lowered their motivation for cessation, including the perception that undergoing an imaging test yields the same health benefits as smoking cessation. Other misperceptions include the belief that everyone who participates in screening will benefit; the belief that screening and being able to return for additional screening offers protection from lung cancer; the perception by some individuals that findings from screenings have saved their lives by catching their cancer early when indeterminate findings are identified that can be monitored rather than immediately treated; and a reinforced belief in some individuals that a cancer-free screening test result indicates that they are among the lucky ones who will avoid the harms of smoking. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this qualitative, lung cancer screening prompted many current smokers to reflect on their health and may serve as a potential opportunity to engage patients in discussions about smoking cessation. However, several concerning pathways were identified in which screening, when offered as part of routine care and described as having proven efficacy, may negatively influence smoking cessation. Health care professionals should be aware that the opportunity for early detection of lung cancer may be interpreted as a way of avoiding the harms of smoking. To promote cessation, discussions should focus on the emotional response to screening rather than clinical details (eg, nodule size) and address misperceptions about the value of early detection so that screening does not lower motivation to quit smoking.