Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Protocol

Identifying effective components for mobile health behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation and service uptake: protocol of a systematic review and planned meta-analysis

Authors: Pritaporn Kingkaew, Liz Glidewell, Rebecca Walwyn, Hamish Fraser, Jeremy C. Wyatt

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Mobile health (mHealth) interventions for smoking cessation have been shown to be associated with an increase in effectiveness. However, interventions using mobile phones to change people’s behaviour are often perceived as complex interventions, and the interactions between several components within them may affect the outcome. Therefore, it is important to understand how we can improve the design of mHealth interventions using mobile phones as a medium to deliver services.

Methods

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mHealth interventions to support smoking cessation or uptake of smoking cessation services for smokers will be included in this systematic review. A search will be performed by searching MEDLINE, MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL. A search for new publications will be conducted 3 months prior to submission for publication as mHealth is an emerging area of research.
A random-effects meta-analysis model will be used to summarise the effectiveness of mHealth interventions. The risk ratio will be used for the primary outcome, self-reported or verified smoking abstinence, and any binary outcomes for uptake of smoking cessation services. The standardised mean difference using Hedges’ g will be reported for continuous data. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I 2 statistics.
Where feasible, meta-regression analysis using random-effects multilevel modelling will be conducted to examine the association of pre-specified characteristics (covariates) at the study level with the effectiveness of interventions. Publication bias will be explored using Egger’s test for continuous outcomes and Harbord and Peters tests for dichotomous outcomes. The funnel plot will be used to evaluate the presence of publication bias. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess differences in risks of bias.

Discussion

The results of this systematic review will provide future research with a foundation for designing and evaluating complex interventions that use mobile phones as a platform to deliver behaviour change techniques.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42016026918.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Eriksen M, et al. The tobacco atlas. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc.; 2015.
2.
3.
Free C, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001362.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Orr JA, King RJ. Mobile phone SMS messages can enhance healthy behaviour: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(4):397–416.
5.
Head KJ, et al. Efficacy of text messaging-based interventions for health promotion: a meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2013;97:41–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Spohr SA, et al. Efficacy of SMS text message interventions for smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. J Subst Abus Treat. 2015;56:1–10.CrossRef
7.
Whittaker R, et al. Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;4:CD006611.
8.
Whittaker R, et al. Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD006611.PubMed
9.
10.
11.
Webb TL, et al. Using the internet to promote health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Landis-Lewis Z, et al. Computer-supported feedback message tailoring: theory-informed adaptation of clinical audit and feedback for learning and behavior change. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Craig P, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(5):587–92.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol. 2010;29(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Michie S, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46(1):81–95.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Michie S, et al. Development of a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in individual behavioural support for smoking cessation. Addict Behav. 2011;36(4):315–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Bartlett YK, Sheeran P, Hawley MS. Effective behaviour change techniques in smoking cessation interventions for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Health Psychol. 2014;19(1):181–203.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hoffmann TC, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Shamseer L, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRefPubMed
22.
McGowan J, et al. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sampson M, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):944–52.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Wood CE, et al. Applying the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy v1: a study of coder training. Translat Behav Med. 2015;5(2):134–48.
25.
Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available from www.​handbook.​cochrane.​org.
27.
Jackson D, Bowden J, Baker R. How does the DerSimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts? J Stat Plan Inference. 2010;140(4):961–70.CrossRef
28.
Hedges L. Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. J Educ Stat. 1981;6:107–28.CrossRef
29.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2015.
30.
31.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med. 2004;23(11):1663–82.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
34.
Peters JL, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295(6):676–80.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2006;25(20):3443–57.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Terrin N, et al. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2003;22(13):2113–26.CrossRefPubMed
37.
McShane BB, Bockenholt U, Hansen KT. Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis: an evaluation of selection methods and some cautionary notes. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016;11(5):730–49.CrossRefPubMed
38.
de Bruin M, et al. Identifying effective behavioural components of Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation (IC-SMOKE) interventions: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2016;5:77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Identifying effective components for mobile health behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation and service uptake: protocol of a systematic review and planned meta-analysis
Authors
Pritaporn Kingkaew
Liz Glidewell
Rebecca Walwyn
Hamish Fraser
Jeremy C. Wyatt
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0591-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Systematic Reviews 1/2017 Go to the issue

Protocol

Prevalence, awareness, and associated risk factors of hypertension in older adults in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Protocol

The role of psychosocial stress in the development of chronic musculoskeletal pain disorders: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

Research

The impact of social activities, social networks, social support and social relationships on the cognitive functioning of healthy older adults: a systematic review

Protocol

Protocol of a scoping review on knowledge translation competencies

Protocol

Patient satisfaction with E-Oral Health care in rural and remote settings: a systematic review protocol