scholarly journals Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis

Addiction ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 609-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Jones ◽  
Danielle Remmerswaal ◽  
Ilse Verveer ◽  
Eric Robinson ◽  
Ingmar H. A. Franken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Substance Users ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

scholarly journals Compliance with Ecological Momentary Assessment Protocols in Substance Users: a Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Jones ◽  
Danielle Remmerswaal ◽  
Ilse Verveer ◽  
eric robinson ◽  
Ingmar H.A. Franken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Substance Users ◽  
Assessment Period ◽  
Real Time Data ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

Introduction: Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) methods allow for real-time data collection in naturalistic environments, and are particularly informative for the examination of substance use which is both time and context dependent. Whilst there are considerable benefits to EMA, poor compliance to assessment protocols has been identified as a limitation, particularly in substance users. Little research has analysed factors which might influence compliance. Methods: The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review and meta-analyse potential variables that may influence compliance to EMA protocols in substance users; such as, prompt frequency, total length of assessment period, substance use population and device used to administer EMA prompts. We pre-registered our design, hypotheses and analysis strategy. Results: Following systematic searches of relevant databases we identified k = 128 reported compliance rates in the literature. The pooled compliance rate across all studies was 78.68% (95% CI 76.53%, 80.69%). There was no evidence that any proposed moderators were associated with compliance rates; prompt frequency (Q(3) = 0.98, p = .805) length of assessment period (Q(2) = 1.42, p = .493), substance use population (Q(1) = 1.830, p = .176) or device administration (Q(3) = 4.715, p =.194). Conclusions: The overall compliance rate was similar to that of other fields and recommended rates of compliance (80%), although compliance was not associated with any procedural variables. Furthermore, we identified various limitations in reporting of compliance data and improvement is needed to further elucidate factors which might influence compliance. These findings suggest intensive real-time data collection techniques can be administered in substance using populations, despite previous concerns.

scholarly journals Compliance with mobile Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA) of health-related behaviours and psychological constructs in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie T Williams ◽  
Hayley Lewthwaite ◽  
François Fraysse ◽  
Alexandra Gajewska ◽  
Jordan Ignatavicius ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Random Effects ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Psychological Constructs ◽  
Related Data ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment ◽  
Clinical Populations

BACKGROUND Mobile Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA) permits real time capture of participant behaviours and perceptual experiences. Reporting of mEMA protocols and compliance has been identified as problematic within systematic reviews of child/youth and specific clinical populations of adults. OBJECTIVE In studies of nonclinical and clinical samples of adults, describe: 1) use of mEMA for behaviours and psychological constructs; 2) mEMA protocol and compliance reporting; and 3) associations between key components of mEMA protocols and compliance. METHODS Nine electronic databases were searched (2006 to 2017) for observational studies reporting compliance to mEMA for health-related data from adults (>18 years) in nonclinical and clinical settings. Screening and data extraction were undertaken by independent authors with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Narrative synthesis described participants, mEMA target, protocol and compliance. Random effects meta-analysis explored factors associated with cohort compliance (monitoring duration, daily prompt frequency/schedule, device type, training, incentives and burden score). Random effects ANOVA (P ≤ .05) assessed differences between nonclinical and clinical datasets. RESULTS Of 176 eligible studies, 105 (60%) reported compliance in 115 unique datasets (nonclinical n=69, clinical n=46). The commonest mEMA target was affect (nonclinical 19%, clinical 35%). Median mEMA protocol duration was 10 days (nonclinical 8, clinical 14). The majority of protocols used a single prompt type, random signal (nonclinical 77%, clinical 61%; median prompt frequency 5/d). The median number of items per prompt was similar for nonclinical and clinical datasets (10). Over half of datasets reported mEMA training (78%) and provision of participant incentives (63%). Less than half reported number of prompts delivered (22%), answered (48%), criterion for ‘valid’ mEMA data (33%) or response latency (35%). Meta-analysis (nonclinical n=42, clinical n=31) estimated overall compliance of 83.1% (95%CI 79.7, 89.6) with no difference between before or after data exclusions (P .83) or nonclinical and clinical datasets (P .07). For both nonclinical and clinical datasets, prompts/d and items/prompt were significantly associated with compliance. Compliance was lower with 4-5 prompts/d (nonclinical 77.4%, clinical 81.5%) and with increased items/prompts (clinical 9.5-26 items [71.1%], nonclinical ≥26 items [63%]). For clinical datasets, studies with a 7-day duration reported the lowest compliance (n=10, 77.9%; 95%CI 71.5, 83.6%) compared to studies with duration length <7 days (93.5%), 14 days (84.3%) and >14 days (87.1%). CONCLUSIONS In this 10-year sample of studies using mEMA of health-related behaviours and psychological constructs in adult nonclinical and clinical populations, mEMA was applied across contexts, health conditions and to collect a range of health-related data. There was inconsistent reporting of compliance and key features within protocols, which limited the ability to confidently identify components of mEMA schedules likely to have a specific impact on compliance. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

scholarly journals Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment of Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lianne P. de Vries ◽  
Bart M. L. Baselmans ◽  
Meike Bartels
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Objective Data ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Flexible Designs ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

Abstract Feelings of well-being and happiness fluctuate over time and contexts. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies can capture fluctuations in momentary behavior, and experiences by assessing these multiple times per day. Traditionally, EMA was performed using pen and paper. Recently, due to technological advances EMA studies can be conducted more easily with smartphones, a device ubiquitous in our society. The goal of this review was to evaluate the literature on smartphone-based EMA in well-being research in healthy subjects. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Searching PubMed and Web of Science, we identified 53 studies using smartphone-based EMA of well-being. Studies were heterogeneous in designs, context, and measures. The average study duration was 12.8 days, with well-being assessed 2–12 times per day. Half of the studies included objective data (e.g. location). Only 47.2% reported compliance, indicating a mean of 71.6%. Well-being fluctuated daily and weekly, with higher well-being in evenings and weekends. These fluctuations disappeared when location and activity were accounted for. On average, being in nature and physical activity relates to higher well-being. Working relates to lower well-being, but workplace and company do influence well-being. The important advantages of using smartphones instead of other devices to collect EMAs are the easier data collection and flexible designs. Smartphone-based EMA reach far larger maximum sample sizes and more easily add objective data to their designs than palm-top/PDA studies. Smartphone-based EMA research is feasible to gain insight in well-being fluctuations and its determinants and offers the opportunity for parallel objective data collection. Most studies currently focus on group comparisons, while studies on individual differences in well-being patterns and fluctuations are lacking. We provide recommendations for future smartphone-based EMA research regarding measures, objective data and analyses.

Ecological momentary assessment and physiological self-evaluation improve mindfulness of stress-related events during interprofessional training. Meta-analysis of a pilot study

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s897-s897
Author(s):  
C. Lazzari ◽  
I. Masiello
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stressful Events ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Momentary Assessment

IntroductionSelf-reflective learning improves interprofessional education (IPE).ObjectivesPromoting ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of IPE via an online app. This shall allow contextual recording of students’ heart rate during and after pivotal moments of their training, thus improving mindfulness of stressful events (MSE).AimsTo make health care students mindful of the effect of their anxiety about learning, patient safety and performance.MethodsThirty-two undergraduate students contextually recorded their heart rate with a pulse-oximeter before and after each learning moment: discussion of a clinical case during ward rounds (ClinDis), attending patients as an interprofessional team (BedPat) and self-reflective practice at the end of each day of training (SelfRef). Results were recorded on a dedicated app linked to an online survey. Meta-analysis with Tau squared (t2), Cochrane's Q and I2 provided the results.ResultsMeta-analysis (Fig. 1) of IPE events was significant at P = 0.003, with t2 = 16.515, Q (5d.f.) = 17.913, and I2 = 72.088%. The bedside care had the higher statistically significant heterogeneity in the before-after event with t2 = 53.275, P = 0.001, Q (5d.f.) = 10.803 and I2 = 90.74% due to an increase in heart rate after patient care (BedPatAft).ConclusionsEMA reinforces self-reflection in IPE by making students mindful of the impact of educational emotions on team performance and patients’ quality of care.Fig. 1Results for contextual heart rate during interprofessional education.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document