Smartphone App-Based Interventions to Support Smoking Cessation in Smokers with Mental Health Conditions: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is a lot of repetition throughout the article. The grammatical flow also does not make reading smooth. It will benefit from minor English editors. For instance, compare the introduction to the method versus the redrafted version below to see which flows more smoothly.

"In order to reach our objective, we examined the app market from two perspectives: that of health professionals and consumers, specifically smokers with mental health issues. Health professionals tend to rely on scientific literature, while consumers often depend on recommendations from app stores. Our approach involved two methods: firstly, we began with literature to discover relevant apps available in app stores, and secondly, we started directly from the app stores.

Following established systematic review practices [71-75], we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model, a recognized framework for systematic reviews. A number of smoking cessation apps incorporate evidence-based behavior change strategies, even if they are not mentioned in published research articles.

Our review aimed to identify scientifically supported smoking cessation apps, particularly for smokers with mental health conditions. We focused on published research articles as evidence of scientific support for these apps. We identified and assessed apps designed to help smokers with mental health issues quit smoking through a four-step process."

The table in Appendix A-D needs better organization. Having a sentence like this on the table does not look good. The table looks uncomfortable to read. 

Smok

ers

with

psy

chia

tric

disor

ders

The quality of the English can be improved to make reading much easier. An example is presented in the comment and suggestion section above

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. We value your feedback and have taken measures to address the concerns you raised.

We acknowledge the areas of repetition and the need for improved grammatical flow in our manuscript. We have made revisions throughout the document to enhance clarity and coherence, ensuring that the content is presented in a concise and straightforward manner. We particularly appreciate the redrafted version you provided for the introduction and method sections and have incorporated these changes.

Regarding the tables in Appendices A-D, we apologize for the oversight in their organization. We will suggest the publisher put this table in Landscape, which will be more reader-friendly and present the information in a clear and organized manner.

We believe that these revisions have strengthened our manuscript, and we hope that it now meets the standards of the journal. We are grateful for your time and expertise in reviewing our work.

Warm regards,

Dr Chen and co-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of the manuscript corresponds to its content. I believe that the manuscript does not need any additions. The manuscript is written in a language understandable to the readership. A summary is appropriate for content that is well organized. The manuscript is relevant with regard to the latest research on the mentioned topic and certainly original, because as far as I know, no one has yet dealt with the issue of using a smartphone application in the process of smoking cessation for people with mental disabilities. Appropriate literature/sources are used in the manuscript and terms, methods and terminology are used precisely. The aims, methods, main results and conclusions are well connected. The manuscript has a clear and concise style.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you found the title fitting, the content well-organised, and the language clear and accessible to the readership. Your recognition of the manuscript's relevance and originality in the context of current research is particularly appreciated.

We are grateful for your acknowledgment of the precision with which we've used terms, methods, and terminology, as well as the coherence between the aims, methods, results, and conclusions. Your positive remarks serve as a testament to our team's dedication and effort in ensuring the manuscript's quality.

Your feedback is invaluable to us, and we are motivated to continue our research in this domain. We hope our work contributes meaningfully to the field and benefits the target audience.

Once again, thank you for your time and expertise in reviewing our work.

Warm regards,

Jimmy and The Team

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

It was a pleasure to read your work “Smartphone app-based interventions to support smoking cessation in smokers with mental health conditions: A systematic review”. The work has a promising and interesting flow. I have tried to take a look at the manuscript based on these important criteria:

- Is the research developed thoroughly and followed the correct path to obtain results?

- Are the research questions clear?

- Is there a takeaway for further research?

- Is it easy to read for a non-expert reader?

Based on these important criteria, I have identified some points to be clarified and addressed. Here, you can see line comments that specifically mention my concerns regarding your work in each section:

Introduction:

Line 37

The term COPD is not introduced earlier and needs to be addressed first - what does it stand for before using the abbreviation?

Line 48

The abbreviation [RR] is better presented with parentheses, not brackets.

Methods:

Line 89

The authors have mentioned the PRISMA model. If the authors have registered their research on Prospero, please provide the registration number.

Lines 92-95

The authors have replicated their statement about the aim of the research. Consider eliminating one or explain why if it needs to be stated again.

2.4 Identify market-based apps developed from theory or empirical evidence

Line 148

There is a long gap between the two phases of the search. Does this search align with the app searches or not? To clarify, from 30/09/2020 until 03/07/2023, the authors followed up with a second search on apps. As I can see, the authors searched for apps in 01/2021 without further information.

Lines 158-160

The authors have mentioned theory-based or theory-related, but this is unclear. It would be valuable if the authors could clarify this statement further so I can understand what this means as a reader. This is important since a non-expert reader approaching this paper may be unclear on what this statement means.

Lines 161-163

The authors have mentioned that 5 apps were chosen based on representing [79,80]. Since these two citations are unclear, the authors may need more explanation regarding how they chose these apps. Checking both citations and engaging the reader with ambiguous terms or procedures can cause misunderstanding.

Flow 1:

- The inclusion criteria are better presented before Flow 1 since following the structure and flow of reading would not be confused with it. This is important since in line 171, the authors have mentioned inclusion criteria, but these are presented later after line 187.

- Also, I suggest the authors insert the full PRISMA flow diagram in the flow, including step indicators (see more here: http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/flowdiagram.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1)

Here are my general comments on the overall manuscript:

- The narrative results focus a lot on summarizing individual studies. More synthesis is needed to identify key themes, common limitations, etc., across the studies reviewed.

- The conclusions do not fully capture the takeaway messages - need to emphasize gaps in research on this topic.

- Section 3.3 can be shortened and combined to be easier to read and understand. Also, using a common currency (US $) would be sufficient.

I hope these suggestions help improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled “Smartphone app-based interventions to support smoking cessation in smokers with mental health conditions: A systematic review”. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you've dedicated to reviewing our work and providing valuable insights.

Introduction:

Line 37: We acknowledge the oversight and have now introduced the term "Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)" in full before using the abbreviation.

Line 48: Based on your suggestion, we have changed the presentation of the abbreviation "RR" to use parentheses instead of brackets.

Methods:

Line 89: We did not register this review on Prospero.

Lines 92-95: We have revised this section to eliminate the redundant statement about the aim of the research.

2.4 Identify market-based apps:

Line 148: We acknowledge the gap between the two literature search phases. The initial search was conducted on 30th September 2020, and the subsequent round was on 23rd July 2023. This gap was intentional to ensure a comprehensive capture of all pertinent studies, especially given the swift evolution and introduction of new apps in the market. Additionally, the search for apps in 01/2021 was a preliminary exploration to gauge the landscape, which informed our subsequent, more detailed search. We will include an explanation of this in the revision.

Lines 158-160: We have expanded on this section to provide a clearer definition and distinction between "theory-based" and "theory-related".

Lines 161-163: We have elaborated on the criteria used to select the 5 apps, providing a more detailed explanation based on the references [79,80].

Flow 1:

We have restructured this section to present the inclusion criteria before introducing Flow 1, ensuring a logical flow of information. Additionally, we have incorporated the full PRISMA flow diagram into the manuscript, aligning with the PRISMA guidelines.

General Comments:

We have revised the narrative results to provide a more synthesised overview, highlighting key themes and common limitations across the studies reviewed.

The conclusions section has been updated to better capture the key takeaways and emphasise the existing gaps in research on this topic.

Section 3.3 has been streamlined for clarity, and we've ensured that all monetary values are presented in US dollars for consistency.

We believe that these revisions have enhanced the clarity and coherence of our manuscript. We are grateful for your expertise and guidance, and we hope that our manuscript now aligns more closely with the journal's standards.

Warm regards,

Dr J Chen and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx