Catherine S Nagawa, Sydney Newell Chesebro, Katie Qualls Fay, Madeline Hardage, Junru Zhao, Frances Wen, Michelle R vanDellen
{"title":"Developing supporter-focused text messages to enhance cessation support for individuals with mental health conditions who smoke: A formative study.","authors":"Catherine S Nagawa, Sydney Newell Chesebro, Katie Qualls Fay, Madeline Hardage, Junru Zhao, Frances Wen, Michelle R vanDellen","doi":"10.1177/14604582261488344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionThis formative study aimed to develop and evaluate supporter-focused text messages intended to enhance helpful support behaviors and reduce counterproductive support behaviors in the context of smoking cessation.MethodsWe developed 65 messages informed by responsiveness theory and established research on cessation. One hundred and ninety six adults (eligibility: ≥18 years, knowing someone who smokes) rated the messages on three dimensions of helpfulness (i.e., clarity, usefulness, relevance). Using mixed-effects regression models, we examined whether helpfulness ratings differed by sociodemographic factors, relationship factors, and tobacco use perceptions.ResultsMean ratings ranged from 4.04 to 4.31/5. Compared with participants who reported knowing a spouse/partner who smoked, those who knew a friend (β̂= 0.34, SE = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04 - 0.64), family member (β̂= 0.38, SE = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07 - 0.67), or coworker/roommate (β̂= 0.56, SE = 0.22, 95% CI:0.14 - 0.98) provided relatively higher ratings. Greater perceived relationship closeness to the individual who smokes was positively associated with higher ratings (β̂= 0.08, SE = 0.03, 95% CI:0.03- 0.14).ConclusionThe high ratings suggest that potential support providers found the messages helpful and tailoring them to relationship characteristics might provide a small additional benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":55069,"journal":{"name":"Health Informatics Journal","volume":"32 3","pages":"14604582261488344"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Informatics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582261488344","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
IntroductionThis formative study aimed to develop and evaluate supporter-focused text messages intended to enhance helpful support behaviors and reduce counterproductive support behaviors in the context of smoking cessation.MethodsWe developed 65 messages informed by responsiveness theory and established research on cessation. One hundred and ninety six adults (eligibility: ≥18 years, knowing someone who smokes) rated the messages on three dimensions of helpfulness (i.e., clarity, usefulness, relevance). Using mixed-effects regression models, we examined whether helpfulness ratings differed by sociodemographic factors, relationship factors, and tobacco use perceptions.ResultsMean ratings ranged from 4.04 to 4.31/5. Compared with participants who reported knowing a spouse/partner who smoked, those who knew a friend (β̂= 0.34, SE = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04 - 0.64), family member (β̂= 0.38, SE = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07 - 0.67), or coworker/roommate (β̂= 0.56, SE = 0.22, 95% CI:0.14 - 0.98) provided relatively higher ratings. Greater perceived relationship closeness to the individual who smokes was positively associated with higher ratings (β̂= 0.08, SE = 0.03, 95% CI:0.03- 0.14).ConclusionThe high ratings suggest that potential support providers found the messages helpful and tailoring them to relationship characteristics might provide a small additional benefit.
期刊介绍:
Health Informatics Journal is an international peer-reviewed journal. All papers submitted to Health Informatics Journal are subject to peer review by members of a carefully appointed editorial board. The journal operates a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer’s name is always concealed from the submitting author.