Evaluation of two mobile health apps in the context of smoking cessation: qualitative study of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus non-CBT-based digital solutions.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps can offer users numerous benefits, representing a feasible and acceptable means of administering health interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT is commonly used in the treatment of mental health conditions, where it has a strong evidence base, suggesting that it represents an effective method to elicit health behavior change. More importantly, CBT has proved to be effective in smoking cessation, in the context of smoking-related costs to the National Health Service (NHS) having been estimated to be as high as £2.6bn in 2015. Although the evidence base for computerized CBT in mental health is strong, there is limited literature on its use in smoking cessation. This, combined with the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions, advocates a need for research into the effectiveness of CBT-based smoking cessation apps. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was, first, to explore participants' perceptions of 2 mHealth apps, a CBT-based app, Quit Genius, and a non-CBT-based app, NHS Smokefree, over a variety of themes. Second, the study aimed to investigate the perceptions and health behavior of users of each app with respect to smoking cessation. METHODS: A qualitative short-term longitudinal study was conducted, using a sample of 29 smokers allocated to one of the 2 apps, Quit Genius or Smokefree. Each user underwent 2 one-to-one semistructured interviews, 1 week apart. Thematic analysis was carried out, and important themes were identified. Descriptive statistics regarding participants' perceptions and health behavior in relation to smoking cessation are also provided. RESULTS: The thematic analysis resulted in five higher themes and several subthemes. Participants were generally more positive about Quit Genius's features, as well as about its design and information engagement and quality. Quit Genius users reported increased motivation to quit smoking, as well as greater willingness to continue using their allocated app after 1 week. Moreover, these participants demonstrated preliminary changes in their smoking behavior, although this was in the context of our limited sample, not yet allowing for the finding to be generalizable. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the use of CBT in the context of mHealth apps as a feasible and potentially effective smoking cessation tool. mHealth apps must be well developed, preferably with an underlying behavioral change mechanism, to promote positive health behavior change. Digital CBT has the potential to become a powerful tool in overcoming current health care challenges. The present results should be replicated in a wider sample using the apps for a longer period so as to allow for generalizability. Further research is also needed to focus on the effect of greater personalization on behavioral change and on understanding the psychological barriers to the adoption of new mHealth solutions

Augmenting the field experience: a student-led comparison of techniques and technologies

In this study we report on our experiences of creating and running a student fieldtrip exercise which allowed students to compare a range of approaches to the design of technologies for augmenting landscape scenes. The main study site is around Keswick in the English Lake District, Cumbria, UK, an attractive upland environment popular with tourists and walkers. The aim of the exercise for the students was to assess the effectiveness of various forms of geographic information in augmenting real landscape scenes, as mediated through a range of techniques and technologies. These techniques were: computer-generated acetate overlays showing annotated wireframe views from certain key points; a custom-designed application running on a PDA; a mediascape running on the mScape software on a GPS-enabled mobile phone; Google Earth on a tablet PC; and a head-mounted in-field Virtual Reality system. Each group of students had all five techniques available to them, and were tasked with comparing them in the context of creating a visitor guide to the area centred on the field centre. Here we summarise their findings and reflect upon some of the broader research questions emerging from the project

Critical Review of Research on Families and Family Policies in Europe Conference Report

This report was produced by FAMILYPLATFORM. FAMILYPLATFORM (SSH-2009-3.2.2 Social platform on research for families and family policies) is funded by the EU’s 7th Framework Programme (€1,400,000) and has a duration of 18 months (October 2009 – March 2011). The consortium consists of the following 12 organisations: 1) Technical University Dortmund (Coordinators); 2) State Institute for Family Research, University of Bamberg; 3) Family Research Centre, University of Jyväskylä; 4) Austrian Institute for Family Studies, University of Vienna; 5) Demographic Research Institute, Budapest; 6) Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon; 7) Department of Sociology and Social research, University of Milan-Bicocca; 8) Institute of International and Social Studies, Tallinn University; 9) London School of Economics; 10) Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union (COFACE), Brussels; 11) Forum delle Associazioni Familiari, Italy; 12) Mouvement Mondial des Mères, Brussels; Contact [email protected] or visit http://www.familyplatform.eu for more information.The aim of this Critical Review Report is to describe and report on the international conference "Families and Family Policies in Europe - A Critical Review", wich took place in Lisbon, at the Institute for Social Sciences (University of Lisbon), in May 2010. Organized by FAMILYPLATFORM consortium, the main objective of this 3 day conference was to carry out a critical review of existing research on families and family policies in Europe. Drawing on expert reviews of the state of the art, critical statements by stakeholders and policy makers, and debate on the major challenges for research and policies, the conference was organized with a view to providing a major forum for discussing and identifying the design of future family policies and research.FAMILYPLATFORM (SSH 2009.2.2 Social platform on research for families and family  policies):  funded  by  the  European  Unions 7th Framework Programme for 18 months (October 2009 – March 2011)

Children and the internet: An exploration of Year 5 pupils’ online experiences and perceptions of risk

The internet is becoming increasingly integral to children’s lives. Consequently, it is vital that children are educated in how to protect themselves online and how to become responsible online users. This action research study addresses significant gaps in existing research by exploring children’s online experiences, alongside their understandings of risk, from their own perspective, in order to inform a personalised and relevant internet safety curriculum within the research setting. The study utilises a mixed-methods approach, combining a comprehensive quantitative survey with a subsequent qualitative group interview with a sample of 14 participants. Findings suggest that, despite being proficient online users with an awareness of what constitutes online risk, many children largely fail to apply this knowledge to their own online practices. The study demonstrates the importance of educators and schools understanding children’s online activities in order to respond to their needs and concerns effectively. Based on the research findings, it is recommended that similar research is actioned across primary schools, and that schools appoint pupils as internet safety ambassadors to provide educators with insights into children’s current online activities, alongside providing peer guidance and support from a pupil perspective. These recommendations could be significant for the online safety education of children and young people in the wider context

Parent and Student Voices on the First Year of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program

In the 50 years since economist Milton Friedman published “The Role of Government in Education” scholars and policy makers have been debating how parental choice through market mechanisms can and does operate in education. Market “optimists” argue that education is a service that can be produced under a variety of arrangements and that parents are natural education consumers. Market “pessimists” argue that education is a public good that should be produced in government-run schools, and that school choice programs suffer “market failure” because only advantaged families will have the resources and experience to choose effectively