The rise in e-cigarette use (vaping), particularly among youth and young adults, has become a pressing public health issue worldwide. Frequently marketed as a tool for smoking cessation and a safer alternative to traditional tobacco products, vaping has become widely popular among nonsmokers and introduced a new generation to nicotine addiction [1-4]. The myriad of flavor options, convenient and discreet device designs, misconceptions about vaping-related harms, the addictive nature of nicotine, and complex socioenvironmental influences further perpetuate vaping behaviors and complicate cessation efforts [2-7]. This has prompted a call to action by the World Health Organization to prevent young people from vaping and promote cessation [8]. Despite the proliferation of vaping among youth and young adults, recent evidence indicates that many young e-cigarette users want to quit [9-13]. This expressed desire to quit, coupled with the challenges associated with vaping, necessitates the urgent development of tailored, accessible, and effective interventions to support individuals in their quit journeys.

Vaping cessation presents unique challenges that distinguish it from smoking cessation [13]. Barriers such as social influences, stress reduction, and sensory gratification overlap, yet key differences exist, including the appeal of flavored e-liquids, the discretion of vaping, and the lack of awareness of personal vaping habits. Many users also engage in dual use (vaping and smoking) or co-use with cannabis [14]. In addition, the lack of reliable information on vaping-related health risks fosters confusion and mistrust. These distinctions underscore the need for interventions tailored explicitly to the vaping context rather than relying solely on adaptations of smoking cessation tools [13].

Digital interventions have emerged as promising tools for behavior change, particularly for youth and young adults who are highly engaged with technology [15-22]. Mobile apps, text messaging, social media, and web-based platforms offer advantages such as real-time feedback, continuous support, and personalized content tailored to individual behavior, goals, and preferences. By leveraging technology, digital interventions may address key barriers to vaping cessation, such as social influences, by providing community support, peer-based encouragement, and real-time coaching [17-19]. While previous reviews have found that vaping cessation interventions that use digital technologies are successful in supporting quitting [15-18], including for youth [19], an in-depth exploration of these digital interventions remains lacking.

This scoping review aimed to identify and map the landscape of digital interventions designed to support vaping cessation. By synthesizing existing research, this review sought to provide insights into the effectiveness, engagement strategies, and implementation considerations of digital vaping cessation interventions. This review aimed to inform future intervention development by highlighting best practices, gaps, and opportunities in the field. This scoping review addressed the following questions: (1) What types of digital interventions have been developed and/or evaluated for vaping cessation? (2) What evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of these digital interventions in promoting vaping cessation and user engagement? (3) What key barriers and facilitators influence the adoption, adherence, and success of digital vaping cessation interventions? (4) What gaps remain in the literature, and what areas should future research prioritize to enhance the design and effectiveness of digital vaping cessation tools? By addressing these questions, this review aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of digital vaping cessation tools, offering guidance for future research and intervention design to enhance accessibility, engagement, and long-term cessation success.

Scoping reviews are well-suited to projects aiming to map out a broad and evolving field where the evidence is diverse and emerging [23]. Given that vaping cessation interventions are a relatively new area of research, this method allows for the inclusion of various study designs, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), qualitative studies, protocols, and pilot programs [23]. This is crucial for understanding the effectiveness of these interventions and the challenges and opportunities they present. In addition, the rapid evolution of digital technology necessitates a broad and inclusive approach to ensure that the review captures the full range of available evidence. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual was used to guide the conduct of this scoping review [23]. The scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist [24]. A scoping review protocol was drafted internally by KF and LS.

The lead author (KF) developed the search strategy in collaboration with an academic librarian to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant literature. Preliminary searches were conducted in high-impact journals related to digital health and tobacco cessation to refine search terms. An initial set of searches in MEDLINE was performed to analyze title and abstract keywords and the index terms used to classify relevant papers. Based on these findings, a finalized list of search terms was compiled. A systematic search of the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO was conducted in October 2024 to identify peer-reviewed studies evaluating digital interventions for vaping cessation. Boolean operators (AND/OR) were used to refine search results, combining keywords related to vaping cessation and digital interventions, such as mobile health, text messaging, mobile apps, telehealth, and social media. The search strategy was structured to capture quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, ensuring a broad representation of intervention types and study designs. A hand search of reference lists from included studies was conducted to identify additional relevant papers. However, gray literature, conference abstracts, and non–peer-reviewed sources were not included, as this review focused on empirical evidence from peer-reviewed research to ensure methodological rigor. The full search strategy, including search terms and database queries, is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

Included studies had to be primary research papers that provided evidence on digital interventions for vaping cessation. More specifically, studies had to examine mobile apps, text messaging programs, social media or web-based platforms, telehealth coaching, or other digital-based interventions explicitly designed to support individuals quitting vaping. To meet these criteria, studies had to report on at least one primary or secondary outcome related to vaping cessation, such as abstinence rates, reduction in vaping frequency, changes in nicotine dependence, user engagement, retention, adherence or intervention satisfaction. Studies that did not include user outcome data but systematically evaluated the design, quality, or behaviour change potential of vaping cessation tools were also included.

Studies that focused solely on smoking cessation were excluded unless they explicitly provided distinct data on vaping cessation. Likewise, studies that examined vaping prevention efforts, such as educational campaigns aimed at deterring initiation, were excluded, as this review focused on cessation rather than prevention. Research that only explored user preferences for digital vaping cessation interventions without evaluating an actual intervention was also excluded, as existing literature already addresses cessation method preferences [19-21]. In addition, studies that reported only on attitudes or knowledge about vaping without assessing behavioral change or specific interventions were excluded.

No restrictions were placed on participant age, allowing for the inclusion of interventions targeting adolescents, young adults, and older adults. Only peer-reviewed studies published in English after January 2018 were included to capture recent work in digital vaping cessation interventions. Studies that did not provide empirical data, such as editorials, opinion pieces, or gray literature, were excluded to maintain methodological rigor. This review aimed to provide a clear, actionable synthesis of tools and strategies developed and tested to support vaping cessation by focusing on existing digital interventions.

Studies retrieved from the database searches were managed using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd), a reference management and screening software. Any duplicates were removed by Covidence before being imported for screening. KF manually conducted a 2-stage screening process following duplicate removal. During level 1 screening, the titles and abstracts of the studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria. Studies that did not meet the criteria based on their title or abstract were excluded. In level 2 screening, the full-text papers that passed level 1 screening were reviewed to confirm their eligibility for inclusion. Studies that met all inclusion criteria were selected for full data extraction, while reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage were recorded, consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines [24]. For any studies where there was a question of whether the criteria were satisfied, KF consulted with LS, and a decision was made through discussion and consensus.

Data extraction was conducted manually by KF, following a standardized extraction form designed with LS to ensure consistency and accuracy. The extracted data were organized in Microsoft Word tables and managed using Zotero reference manager software. The key extracted variables included: (1) study characteristics (lead author, year of publication, country of origin, study design, sample size, and population demographics), (2) intervention details (type of digital intervention, duration, and delivery format), and (3) primary and secondary outcomes (vaping cessation rates, changes in nicotine dependence, intervention engagement, retention, and user satisfaction).

A second data extraction form was used to categorize intervention strategies and implementation considerations, focusing on (1) theoretical frameworks and behavior change models used in intervention design, (2) common features and engagement strategies within digital interventions, (3) barriers and facilitators to intervention success, and (4) implementation challenges and recommendations for future digital vaping cessation tools. The data extraction forms were developed iteratively, with modifications made after initial implementation on a sample of studies to refine data categorization and clarity.

A descriptive analysis of the included studies was conducted to address the objectives of this scoping review. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize key findings, categorize studies by intervention modality (eg, mobile apps, text messaging, telehealth, and social media), and evaluate their effectiveness, engagement strategies, and implementation considerations. Quantitative data, including cessation rates, engagement metrics, and user retention statistics, were summarized descriptively and tabulated to facilitate comparison. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic synthesis, identifying recurring intervention strategies, barriers, and facilitators. Findings were presented using narrative descriptions, frequency distributions, and visual representations, where appropriate, to enhance clarity and comparability across intervention types.

This study was classified by the University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioral Research Ethics Board as research not involving human participants and, therefore, not subject to institutional review board jurisdiction. All included studies were appropriately cited to respect intellectual property rights.

A total of 794 papers were identified through database searches (CINAHL: n=172, MEDLINE: n=451, and PsycINFO: n=171). After 272 duplicate records were removed, 522 papers remained for title and abstract screening. Of these, 485 studies were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria, leaving 37 full-text papers for further assessment. Following a full-text review, 21 studies were excluded due to irrelevant study outcomes (n=8), ineligible intervention types (n=8), or nonqualifying study populations (n=5). Ultimately, 16 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram, outlining the study selection process [24].

A total of 16 studies were included in this scoping review, published between 2018 and 2024, reflecting the timeframe of our search strategy rather than a true surge in research activity on digital vaping cessation interventions. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n=9), with additional studies from Canada (n=4) and Australia (n=1). This geographic distribution highlights a concentration of research in high-income countries, with limited representation from low- and middle-income regions. The target population of the digital vaping cessation interventions varied across studies. While most interventions focused on youth and young adults, a few studies included adults older than 30 years of age. Sample sizes ranged widely, from as few as 8 participants in pilot feasibility studies to over 2500 participants in large-scale trials. Participants were predominantly White, female, and younger than 30 years of age, emphasizing the need for future research to include more diverse populations to address health disparities in vaping cessation outcomes.

The primary outcome of interest across studies was vaping cessation, measured through self-reported abstinence and, in some cases, biochemical verification (Table 1). The table includes only the 9 studies that explicitly reported cessation outcomes; other studies are described narratively in the “Results” section. Secondary outcomes included reductions in vaping frequency, nicotine dependence, user engagement with the intervention, participant satisfaction, intervention retention or adherence, and intervention design. Studies varied in their use of behavior change theories, with some explicitly integrating cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), the transtheoretical model, or social cognitive theory (SCT). In contrast, others lacked a clear theoretical foundation. The design and development of digital interventions often involve multidisciplinary teams, including researchers, clinicians, behavioral scientists, app developers, and public health experts. While some studies described user-centered design processes that engaged end users (eg, focus groups and co-design sessions), others did not specify how interventions were tailored to participant needs. The duration of intervention development and evaluation varied considerably, with some studies reporting development phases lasting under 6 months, while others described multiyear processes. Many studies did not specify the timeline for intervention development, limiting insights into how long it takes to design and refine practical digital vaping cessation tools. A detailed overview of the study characteristics, intervention types, and primary outcomes is provided in Multimedia Appendix 2.

Four categories of interventions were examined, including text messaging programs (n=4; 26-28,30], mobile apps (n=2; 29,33], telehealth-delivered contingency management (CM; n=2; 31,32], and web- or social media–based support (n=1; 25]. McKay et al [34] and Sanchez et al [35] conducted assessments and content analyses of vaping cessation mobile apps available on the Apple and Google Play stores. The 2 study protocols sought to test an Instagram (Meta)-based intervention [36] and a mobile app–based intervention, “Crush the Crave” [37]. In addition, Huma et al [22], Lyu et al [38], and Struik et al [39] qualitatively explored app-based, social media–based, and web-based cessation support, respectively.

This scoping review synthesized evidence from 16 studies evaluating digital vaping cessation interventions, highlighting their potential and ongoing challenges. The findings demonstrate that text messaging programs, mobile apps, telehealth-based CM, and web-based or social media interventions offer promising strategies for supporting individuals in quitting vaping. Programs such as “Kick Vaping” and “Quit Genius-Vaping” achieved significant abstinence rates, indicating the effectiveness of personalized, behavior-based digital interventions in modifying vaping behaviors [30,33]. These findings align with the broader research on smoking cessation strategies, suggesting that tailored digital interventions targeting substance use can enhance engagement, self-efficacy, and quit success [41,42]. However, it is important to note that the current state of evidence remains far from robust, and that the included studies are limited by short follow-ups, small sample sizes, and attrition. Engagement metrics were variably reported, with completion rates and app logins most frequently measured, while duration of use and content-specific interactions were seldom reported, limiting comparability across interventions.

Two recurring design features emerged as particularly influential: social support and personalization. Social support was a cornerstone of many vaping cessation tools, leveraging peer mentoring, community networks, quit-coaching, or professional support [25,28,29,33,38,39]. For example, Lyu et al [38] emphasized the value of peer mentoring for adolescents, highlighting that effective mentors were those who had successfully quit vaping, were relatable, and provided regular check-ins. Inclusive and safe spaces, such as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and others)-friendly groups, were considered essential, along with a preference for small-group formats or one-on-one support. Similarly, Struik et al [39] reported that the “QuitNow” platform’s coach-moderated community forums and access to trained quit coaches were highly valued by participants, particularly among those who vaped or dual-used nicotine products. Programs such as “Pivot” [29], “Quit the Vape” [28] and “Quit Genius - Vaping” [33] demonstrated that hybrid models combining scalable digital tools with human coaching can strengthen accountability and foster connection. These findings highlight that social support is not simply an “add-on” but may be a key driver of motivation, particularly when programs create inclusive, safe, and culturally responsive spaces.

Personalization was also central to user engagement and sustained use. Programs such as “This Is Quitting” [26,27] tailored text messages based on users’ age, quit readiness, and vaping habits, while Webb et al [33] integrated individualized feedback, skill-building, and quiz content for the individual. Culturally adaptive approaches, such as bilingual support in “Kick Vaping,” underscored how tailoring content to linguistic and cultural preferences can reduce barriers and increase engagement among underserved populations [30]. However, gaps remain; Sanchez et al [35] observed that few interventions addressed vaping-specific behaviors, such as device type or flavored pod use, pointing to missed opportunities for relevance. Future programs should extend personalization beyond demographic tailoring to account for vaping culture, context, and product-specific behaviors.

A prominent limitation across studies was the inconsistent application of behavior change theories. CBT informed several mobile apps, providing structured strategies to identify triggers, challenge unhelpful thoughts, and set progress milestones [29,33]. The transtheoretical model supported tailored interventions aligned with readiness to quit [36], while SCT was implicitly present in peer-driven features that leveraged observational learning and self-efficacy [26,27]. Despite these examples, many studies failed to explicitly justify their theoretical choices or clarify how frameworks informed program features. This lack of transparency weakens transferability. Future developers should map intervention components (eg, tailored messaging, gamification, or social support features) to theoretical constructs, ensuring theory drives design and evaluation meaningfully rather than serving as a post hoc label. Recent reviews by Sanchez et al [35] and McKay et al [34] provide a complementary perspective on mobile app-based vaping cessation interventions. Both studies systematically assessed the quality and content of commercially available apps and found that many were user-friendly but lacked evidence-based content and behaviour change features such as quit planning or relapse prevention, illustrating that much of the publicaly available apps are limited in terms of clinical rigor and theoretical grounding.

User engagement and retention were identified as persistent challenges. Several studies reported high dropout rates, particularly after the initial novelty of the intervention diminished, as well as loss to follow-up [26,28]. Longer programs tended to experience greater attrition, suggesting feasibility trade-offs between length and depth of support and sustainability of participation. This reflects a broader challenge within mobile health research, where static content and passive engagement strategies often fail to sustain motivation [43]. Addressing this challenge will require adaptive and interactive approaches, including integrating dynamic content, in-time feedback, and progressive tailoring that evolves with user needs. Importantly, few interventions incorporated iterative, user-centered design processes; this limited tailoring may have contributed to reduced relevance and scalability.

Gamification and interactivity were underused in the design of most interventions. Although previous literature suggests these features can enhance digital health interventions [19,44-46], few vaping cessation tools incorporate them, thus limiting insight into their effectiveness. Milkowski et al [19] underscore the promise of gamification and how it resonates with youth; they suggest the exploration of virtual reality games as a viable avenue for vaping cessation support. In line with their findings and recommendations, we suggest cautious integration of gamification with rigorous evaluation. Interventions should consider which specific gamified elements (eg, rewards, milestones, and social competition) align with user needs and feasibility in real-world settings. To enhance real-world implementation, gamification features should be tested in pragmatic pilot settings to evaluate sustainability and acceptability, particularly in resource-limited contexts.

Another concern was the reliance on self-reported vaping abstinence, which may lead to overestimation of quit rates due to response bias. While the 2 CM studies incorporated the biochemical validation method of saliva cotinine testing, the rest of the studies relied solely on self-reported data, raising concerns about the accuracy of cessation outcomes [31,32]. Future studies should incorporate cost-efficient biochemical validation to strengthen confidence in findings and ensure methodological rigor. From an implementation perspective, CM interventions demonstrated high short-term efficacy but raised significant questions of scalability. The logistical and financial demands of incentive distribution limit widespread adoption. Embedding CM features into hybrid models or pairing smaller incentive structures with evidence-based behavioral supports may improve feasibility.

In addition, the promise of digital interventions should be balanced against the pitfalls. Overreliance on digital tools may exacerbate inequities for those without stable internet access or private device ownership. In addition, privacy and data security concerns may disproportionately impact youth and deter uptake, especially when interventions are delivered via social media platforms. Finally, while digital programs can increase accessibility, they should not fully replace human or clinical support due to the complexities that youth and young adults face in their cessation journeys. Overpromising the effectiveness of digital-only approaches risks undermining credibility and losing the confidence of users; a balanced approach that integrates digital reach with clinical support should therefore be considered.

Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of developing digital cessation tools that are theoretically grounded, user-centered, and rigorously evaluated. Hybrid approaches integrating automated digital support with tailored human interaction appear especially promising, combining scalability with personalization. Future research should prioritize co-design with diverse youth and young adult populations, culturally and linguistically tailored content, equity-focused delivery strategies, and pragmatic long-term follow-up. Addressing these priorities will be critical for translating promising pilot results into sustainable, population-level public health impact.

This scoping review has several strengths that contribute to its value in understanding the current landscape of digital interventions for vaping cessation. A major strength is the comprehensive and systematic approach taken to identify and synthesize evidence from diverse study designs, ranging from RCTs to qualitative evaluations. This breadth allowed us to capture both effectiveness outcomes (eg, cessation rates) and user perspectives (eg, satisfaction, barriers, and facilitators). By focusing on recent literature, this review reflects the rapidly evolving nature of vaping cessation and digital health technologies. Another strength is the breadth of intervention types reviewed. This diversity of intervention modalities, including text messaging programs, mobile apps, telehealth platforms, and social media or web-based interventions, further strengthens the comprehensiveness of the synthesis.

However, there are notable limitations. Screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer, which may introduce selection bias and reduce methodological rigor. While consensus discussions with a senior researcher mitigated this somewhat, a dual independent review would have enhanced reliability. Another limitation is that, while there is overlap between MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, we did not use Scopus or Web of Science for our formal search, which may have resulted in missed studies. In addition, excluding gray literature and non–peer-reviewed studies may have limited the ability to capture some real-world and emerging interventions. Although this decision was intended to maintain rigor, it may have excluded practical insights from implementational contexts. Consistent with scoping review methodology, no formal quality appraisal of included studies was conducted, which means the robustness of the evidence base cannot be fully evaluated [23]. Future reviews would benefit from determining the quality of the evidence.

Furthermore, most studies relied on self-reported outcomes and short follow-up periods, limiting confidence in long-term effectiveness. Publication bias may also be present, as studies with null or negative results are less likely to appear in the peer-reviewed literature. Finally, many included studies were conducted with small, homogeneous samples, primarily White and younger than 30 years of age. This limits the generalizability and highlights the need for more diverse populations in future research. Several interventions required participants to indicate motivation or intent to quit vaping. Few explicitly engaged youth who are not yet motivated to quit, which represents a missed opportunity to reduce the burden. Taken together, these strengths and limitations underscore the need for rigorous, inclusive, and methodologically transparent research to advance the field of digital vaping cessation.

Digital interventions offer a potential pathway to support vaping cessation, providing accessible and personalized tools that can meet youth where they are. This scoping review highlights encouraging findings from text messaging programs, mobile apps, telehealth-based CM, and web-based platforms; however, the overall evidence remains preliminary and methodologically limited. Attrition, inconsistent reporting of engagement metrics, reliance on self-reported outcomes, and scalability concerns (particularly for CM) underscore the need for cautious interpretation.

Moving forward, digital interventions should work toward moving beyond proof-of-concept trials to prioritize (1) hybrid approaches that integrate digital features with tailored human support; (2) transparent application of behavior change frameworks, with clear mapping of program theoretical constructs; (3) equity-focused co-design that incorporates the perspectives of diverse youth populations, including underserved and marginalized groups; and (4) pragmatic, long-term evaluations that combine biochemical verification with real-world implementation testing. By addressing these priorities, digital cessation interventions can evolve in a more rigorous and user-centered direction; ultimately, strengthening their capacity to support the health and well-being of individuals seeking to quit vaping.