Background Popular social media could extend the reach of smoking cessation efforts. In this systematic review, our objectives were: 1) to determine whether social media interventions for smoking cessation are feasible, acceptable, and potentially effective; 2) to identify approaches for recruiting subjects; and 3) to examine the specific intervention design components and strategies employed to promote user engagement and retention. Methods We searched Scopus, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science through July 2016 and reference lists of relevant articles. Included studies described social media interventions for smoking cessation and must have reported outcomes related to feasibility, acceptability, usability, or smoking-related outcomes. Results We identified 7 studies (all were published since 2014) that enrolled 9755 participants (median=136 [range 40 to 9042]). Studies mainly used Facebook (n=4) or Twitter (n=2), and emerged as feasible and acceptable. Five studies reported smoking-related outcomes such as greater abstinence, reduction in relapse, and an increase in quit attempts. Most studies (n=6) recruited participants using online or Facebook advertisements. Tailored content, targeted reminders, and moderated discussions were used to promote participant engagement. Three studies found that active participation through posting comments or liking content may be associated with improved outcomes. Retention ranged from 35% to 84% (median=70%) across the included studies. Conclusions Our review highlights the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of social media interventions for smoking cessation. Future research should continue to explore approaches for promoting user engagement and retention, and whether sustained engagement translates to clinically meaningful smoking cessation outcomes.

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) is a rating scale designed to assess executive functions in everyday life that is widely used in school and clinical settings and in research studies. It has been recently suggested, however, that the limited geographic stratification of the standardization sample renders the measure overly sensitive. We evaluated this hypothesis by examining BRIEF scores across studies of typically developing children and adolescents. Thirty-nine studies were identified that included at least one of three possible index scores. Mean scores across studies were (a) within one to two T-score units from the standardization sample mean of 50, (b) tended to be slightly lower than 50, and (c) were unrelated to geographic location (US Census regions or internationally). These findings refute recent claims that the BRIEF is overly sensitive and further add to the large body of literature supporting the validity of the measure.