What the research supports.
And what we will not claim.

You were trained to ask for evidence. This page is the honest answer: the published research behind each design decision, and the claims we refuse to make because no trial of this product exists. Suitability is your call. This is what you need to make it.

1. 01 Self-monitoring
   Noticing is active

   Momentary self-monitoring of urges is beneficially reactive: recording a craving in the moment is associated with lower craving and negative affect, not just data collection. A 2025 randomized trial also found that pushing people to log more did not improve outcomes; autonomy over logging did. Those findings belong to those studies, not to this product. un-vape logging is optional by design, and details can wait.

   EMI/EMA systematic review, Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 2023; quitSTART EMA trial, J Med Internet Res, 2025

2. 02 Urge-surfing
   The wave passes

   Mindfulness-based relapse prevention has randomized-trial support, and the urge-surfing studies show something specific: staying with a craving changes the response to it, not its presence. That is why stayed and pulled both count as noticing here. The honest ceiling: a 2021 Cochrane review rates the wider evidence as carrying risk of bias.

   Bowen et al., JAMA Psychiatry, 2014; Goldberg et al., Cochrane Review, 2021

3. 03 Slow breathing
   Six breaths a minute

   Slow breathing at around six breaths a minute has a research literature behind it, including a 2025 randomized trial that reported reduced craving. That trial studied a device-measured biofeedback protocol in supervised treatment, not an app animation, and its results belong to that device. un-vape offers a slow-breathing pause, in the moment. That is the whole claim.

   Eddie et al., JAMA Psychiatry, 2025

4. 04 The adjunct position
   Beside care, not instead

   Across the literature, standalone apps show little effect, while digital tools supplementing in-person care are associated with meaningfully better outcomes. That finding describes the category, not this product. un-vape simply refuses to exist anywhere except the adjunct position: distributed by you, discussed in session, never a replacement for the relationship.

   Kwan et al., Addiction, 2025 (systematic review and meta-analysis)

Honest records need an unobserved recorder.

People disclose more when they believe no one is watching, and clients under-report use to the clinicians they most want to keep. Published studies of clinician-facing dashboards report the data often goes unread, adding review burden and distrust rather than insight (JMIR Mental Health, 2024). So un-vape removes the dashboard and keeps the disclosure. Your client records the truth because you cannot see it. Then they choose what to bring to session, on paper, in their hand. The confidentiality logic of this field, the same logic 42 CFR Part 2 exists for, built into the architecture.

No trial of un-vape exists. So no numbers, ever.

un-vape has not been trialed, and we will not borrow other studies' statistics to imply it has. You will never see a quit rate on this site. un-vape is not a treatment, not a cessation program, and does not claim to change anyone's vaping. It is a between-session observation tool: it helps a person notice the moment before the pull becomes automatic, and it gives you both a truthful record to work from. What happens with that record is the work, and the work is yours and theirs.

Evaluate it against your own caseload.

Write to sophie.solmini@gmail.com with your credential and the clients you have in mind. You will get a straight answer on whether un-vape fits, from the clinician who built it.