@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/13290，作者=“Danaher, Brian G和Tyler, Milagra S和Crowley, Ryann C和Brendryen, H{\aa}var和Seeley, John R”，标题=“智能手机或个人电脑全自动互联网干预的结果和设备使用:MobileQuit戒烟随机对照试验”，期刊=“J Med Internet Res”，年=“2019”，月=“6”，日=“06”，卷=“21”，数=“6”，页=“e13290”，关键词=“烟草;吸烟;互联网;电子健康;移动健康;智能手机;背景:许多最佳实践戒烟计划使用全自动互联网干预，这些干预是为非移动个人电脑(台式电脑、笔记本电脑和平板电脑)设计的。专门为智能手机等移动设备设计的戒烟干预措施相对较少。目的:本研究考察了两种基于互联网的最佳戒烟干预措施的有效性和使用模式。方法:总体而言，1271名想要戒烟的吸烟者被随机分配到(1)MobileQuit(为移动设备设计并限制其使用，包括短信，并包含隧道信息架构)或(2)QuitOnline(为非移动桌面或平板电脑设计，不包括短信，并使用灵活的混合矩阵-分层信息架构)。 Primary outcomes included self-reported 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence at 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Program visits were unobtrusively assessed (frequency, duration, and device used for access). Results: Significantly more MobileQuit participants than QuitOnline participants reported quitting smoking. Abstinence rates using intention-to-treat analysis were 20.7{\%} (131/633) vs 11.4{\%} (73/638) at 3 months, 24.6{\%} (156/633) vs 19.3{\%} (123/638) at 6 months, and 15.8{\%} (100/633) vs 8.8{\%} (56/638) for both 3 and 6 months. Using Complete Cases, MobileQuit's advantage was significant at 3 months (45.6{\%} [131/287] vs 28.4{\%} [73/257]) and the combined 3 and 6 months (40.5{\%} [100/247] vs 25.9{\%} [56/216]) but not at 6 months (43.5{\%} [156/359] vs 34.4{\%} [123/329]). Participants in both conditions reported their program was usable and helpful. MobileQuit participants visited their program 5 times more frequently than did QuitOnline participants. Consistent with the MobileQuit's built-in constraint, 89.46{\%} (8820/9859) of its visits were made on an intended mobile device, whereas 47.72{\%} (691/1448) of visits to QuitOnline used an intended nonmobile device. Among MobileQuit participants, 76.0{\%} (459/604) used only an intended mobile device, 23.0{\%} (139/604) used both mobile and nonmobile devices, and 0.1{\%} (6/604) used only a nonmobile device. Among QuitOnline participants, 31.3{\%} (137/438) used only the intended nonmobile devices, 16.7{\%} (73/438) used both mobile and nonmobile devices, and 52.1{\%} (228/438) used only mobile devices (primarily smartphones). Conclusions: This study provides evidence for optimizing intervention design for smartphones over a usual care internet approach in which interventions are designed primarily for use on nonmobile devices such as desktop computers, laptops. or tablets. We propose that future internet interventions should be designed for use on all of the devices (multiple screens) that users prefer. We forecast that the approach of designing internet interventions for mobile vs nonmobile devices will be replaced by internet interventions that use a single Web app designed to be responsive (adapt to different screen sizes and operating systems), share user data across devices, embody a pervasive information architecture, and complemented by text message notifications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01952236; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01952236 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zdSxqbf8) ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/13290", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2019/6/e13290/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/13290", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31172967" }