Social contexts are related to health behaviors: mEMA findings from the SPARC study

Woerden, Irene van; Bruening, Meg

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.106042

Cited by 4 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 7 reports, the eEMA questions asked participants to select current or recent activities, including physical activity, from a list of activities [ 42 , 47 , 53 , 55 , 62 , 65 , 70 ]. Recall time frames included “time of prompt” [ 47 , 55 , 62 ], “since the last prompt” [ 70 ], and “in the last 20 minutes” [ 65 ]. In 2 studies, if the current activity was identified as physical activity, then the duration or intensity was also recorded [ 42 , 53 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…eEMA was also used to measure reflective and reactive cognitive processes specific to physical activity, sedentary behavior, or sleep [ 45 , 49 , 53 , 56 , 60 ]. eEMA items were commonly used to collect data on current activity or behavior [ 42 , 47 , 49 , 55 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 77 ], location or environment [ 43 , 47 , 49 , 59 , 64 , 77 ], social context or interactions [ 43 , 47 , 49 , 59 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 70 ], additional self-regulatory cognitive processes [ 49 , 63 , 71 ], and other behaviors such as dietary behaviors [ 42 , 47 , 57 , 67 - 70 ] and smoking or nicotine intake [ 44 , 70 ]. Multimedia Appendix 3 provides the additional outcomes measured using eEMA.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participant incentives were noted in 68% (25/37) of the reports ( Table 3 ). Among these reports, the incentives were in the form of monetary compensation such as gift cards or cash (12/25, 48%) [ 42 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 55 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 67 , 76 ], course credit (5/25, 20%) [ 50 , 53 , 70 , 74 , 77 ], or a combination of both (8/25, 32%) [ 46 , 48 , 51 , 56 , 60 , 65 , 66 , 71 ]. In 64% (16/25) of the studies with incentives, the incentive amounts were dependent on a minimum completion threshold or prorated for completing questions and returning equipment [ 42 , 43 , 45 , 49 - 53 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 71 , 74 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The devices used for eEMA delivery varied, with most studies using mobile phones or smartphones (24/35, 69%) often provided by the participant ( Table 3 ). The study provided devices, including smartwatches (2/35, 6%) [ 45 , 54 ], smartphones (6/35, 17%) [ 42 , 47 , 56 - 58 , 74 ], and handheld computers or tablets (6/35, 17%) [ 44 , 46 , 61 , 70 , 73 , 75 ]. Other researchers used web-based questionnaires available via any web-enabled device [ 67 , 77 ] or via an automated telephone system that provided prompts and question delivery [ 66 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reporting rates related to attrition, prompts delivered, latency, response rates, and missing data provided insight into overall eEMA compliance ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ). Of the 37 reports reviewed, 5 (14%) indicated participant attrition across days or waves of monitoring [ 47 , 65 , 67 , 75 , 77 ]. In total, 2 reports included prompt delivery data to indicate the number or rate of prompts delivered to participants [ 45 , 58 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Use of Electronic Ecological Momentary Assessment Methodologies in Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Sleep Research in Young Adults: Systematic Review

Hartson¹,

Huntington‐Moskos²,

Sears³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Recent technological advances allow for the repeated sampling of real-time data in natural settings using electronic ecological momentary assessment (eEMA). These advances are particularly meaningful for investigating physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep in young adults who are in a critical life stage for the development of healthy lifestyle behaviors. Objective This study aims to describe the use of eEMA methodologies in physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research in young adults. Methods The PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched through August 2022. Inclusion criteria were use of eEMA; sample of young adults aged 18 to 25 years; at least 1 measurement of physical activity, sedentary behavior, or sleep; English language; and a peer-reviewed report of original research. Study reports were excluded if they were abstracts, protocols, or reviews. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted by independent authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used to identify overarching patterns within the following categories guided by the Checklist for Reporting Ecological Momentary Assessments Studies: study characteristics, outcomes and measures, eEMA procedures, and compliance. Results The search resulted in 1221 citations with a final sample of 37 reports describing 35 unique studies. Most reports (28/37, 76%) were published in the last 5 years (2017-2022), used observational designs (35/37, 95%), consisted of samples of college students or apprentices (28/35, 80%), and were conducted in the United States (22/37, 60%). The sample sizes ranged from 14 to 1584 young adults. Physical activity was measured more frequently (28/37, 76%) than sleep (16/37, 43%) or sedentary behavior (4/37, 11%). Of the 37 studies, 11 (30%) reports included 2 movement behaviors and no reports included 3 movement behaviors. eEMA was frequently used to measure potential correlates of movement behaviors, such as emotional states or feelings (25/37, 68%), cognitive processes (7/37, 19%), and contextual factors (9/37, 24%). There was wide variability in the implementation and reporting of eEMA procedures, measures, missing data, analysis, and compliance. Conclusions The use of eEMA methodologies in physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research in young adults has greatly increased in recent years; however, reports continue to lack standardized reporting of features unique to the eEMA methodology. Additional areas in need of future research include the use of eEMA with more diverse populations and the incorporation of all 3 movement behaviors within a 24-hour period. The findings are intended to assist investigators in the design, implementation, and reporting of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research using eEMA in young adults. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42021279156; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021279156

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Use of Electronic Ecological Momentary Assessment Methodologies in Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Sleep Research in Young Adults: Systematic Review

Hartson¹,

Huntington‐Moskos²,

Sears³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluating the Effects of Rewards and Schedule Length on Response Rates to Ecological Momentary Assessment Surveys: Randomized Controlled Trials

Edney¹,

Goh²,

Chua³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) are short, repeated surveys designed to collect information on experiences in real-time, real-life contexts. Embedding periodic bursts of EMAs within cohort studies enables the study of experiences on multiple timescales and could greatly enhance the accuracy of self-reported information. However, the burden on participants may be high and should be minimized to optimize EMA response rates. Objective We aimed to evaluate the effects of study design features on EMA response rates. Methods Embedded within an ongoing cohort study (Health@NUS), 3 bursts of EMAs were implemented over a 7-month period (April to October 2021). The response rate (percentage of completed EMA surveys from all sent EMA surveys; 30-42 individual EMA surveys sent/burst) for each burst was examined. Following a low response rate in burst 1, changes were made to the subsequent implementation strategy (SMS text message announcements instead of emails). In addition, 2 consecutive randomized controlled trials were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 4 different reward structures (with fixed and bonus components) and 2 different schedule lengths (7 or 14 d) on changes to the EMA response rate. Analyses were conducted from 2021 to 2022 using ANOVA and analysis of covariance to examine group differences and mixed models to assess changes across all 3 bursts. Results Participants (N=384) were university students (n=232, 60.4% female; mean age 23, SD 1.3 y) in Singapore. Changing the reward structure did not significantly change the response rate (F3,380=1.75; P=.16). Changing the schedule length did significantly change the response rate (F1,382=6.23; P=.01); the response rate was higher for the longer schedule (14 d; mean 48.34%, SD 33.17%) than the shorter schedule (7 d; mean 38.52%, SD 33.44%). The average response rate was higher in burst 2 and burst 3 (mean 50.56, SD 33.61 and mean 48.34, SD 33.17, respectively) than in burst 1 (mean 25.78, SD 30.12), and the difference was statistically significant (F2,766=93.83; P<.001). Conclusions Small changes to the implementation strategy (SMS text messages instead of emails) may have contributed to increasing the response rate over time. Changing the available rewards did not lead to a significant difference in the response rate, whereas changing the schedule length did lead to a significant difference in the response rate. Our study provides novel insights on how to implement EMA surveys in ongoing cohort studies. This knowledge is essential for conducting high-quality studies using EMA surveys. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05154227; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05154227

show abstract

Evaluating the Effects of Rewards and Schedule Length on Response Rates to Ecological Momentary Assessment Surveys: Randomized Controlled Trials (Preprint)

Edney,

Goh,

Chua

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) are short, repeated surveys designed to collect information on experiences in real-time, real-life contexts. Embedding periodic bursts of EMAs within cohort studies enables the study of experiences on multiple timescales and could greatly enhance the accuracy of self-reported information. However, the burden on participants may be high and should be minimized to optimize EMA response rates. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the effects of study design features on EMA response rates. METHODS Embedded within an ongoing cohort study (Health@NUS), 3 bursts of EMAs were implemented over a 7-month period (April to October 2021). The response rate (percentage of completed EMA surveys from all sent EMA surveys; 30-42 individual EMA surveys sent/burst) for each burst was examined. Following a low response rate in burst 1, changes were made to the subsequent implementation strategy (SMS text message announcements instead of emails). In addition, 2 consecutive randomized controlled trials were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 4 different reward structures (with fixed and bonus components) and 2 different schedule lengths (7 or 14 d) on changes to the EMA response rate. Analyses were conducted from 2021 to 2022 using ANOVA and analysis of covariance to examine group differences and mixed models to assess changes across all 3 bursts. RESULTS Participants (N=384) were university students (n=232, 60.4% female; mean age 23, SD 1.3 y) in Singapore. Changing the reward structure did not significantly change the response rate (F3,380=1.75; P=.16). Changing the schedule length did significantly change the response rate (F1,382=6.23; P=.01); the response rate was higher for the longer schedule (14 d; mean 48.34%, SD 33.17%) than the shorter schedule (7 d; mean 38.52%, SD 33.44%). The average response rate was higher in burst 2 and burst 3 (mean 50.56, SD 33.61 and mean 48.34, SD 33.17, respectively) than in burst 1 (mean 25.78, SD 30.12), and the difference was statistically significant (F2,766=93.83; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Small changes to the implementation strategy (SMS text messages instead of emails) may have contributed to increasing the response rate over time. Changing the available rewards did not lead to a significant difference in the response rate, whereas changing the schedule length did lead to a significant difference in the response rate. Our study provides novel insights on how to implement EMA surveys in ongoing cohort studies. This knowledge is essential for conducting high-quality studies using EMA surveys. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05154227; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05154227

show abstract

Social contexts are related to health behaviors: mEMA findings from the SPARC study

Cited by 4 publications

References 51 publications

Use of Electronic Ecological Momentary Assessment Methodologies in Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Sleep Research in Young Adults: Systematic Review

Use of Electronic Ecological Momentary Assessment Methodologies in Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Sleep Research in Young Adults: Systematic Review

Evaluating the Effects of Rewards and Schedule Length on Response Rates to Ecological Momentary Assessment Surveys: Randomized Controlled Trials

Evaluating the Effects of Rewards and Schedule Length on Response Rates to Ecological Momentary Assessment Surveys: Randomized Controlled Trials (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About