Abstract
Background and AimsWhile there are considerable benefits to Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), poor compliance with assessment protocols has been identified as a limitation, particularly in substance users. Our aim was to identify the pooled compliance rate of EMA studies in substance users and examine variables that may influence compliance with EMA protocols, such as the length and frequency of assessments.DesignA meta‐analysis and meta‐regression of all possible studies (randomized controlled trials and longitudinal) which incorporated EMA protocols, examining substance use.SettingStudies took place from 1998 to 2017, in numerous countries world‐wide.ParticipantsOne hundred and twenty‐six studies were identified, contributing a total of 19 431 participants (52.32% male, mean age = 28.86).MeasurementsCompliance data, the proportion of responses to the study protocol, were extracted from each study alongside prompt frequency, total length of assessment period, substance use population and device used to administer EMA prompts.FindingsThe pooled compliance rate across all studies was 75.06% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 72.37%, 77.65%]. There was no evidence that compliance rates were significantly associated with prompt frequency [Q(3) = 7.35, P = 0.061], length of assessment period [Q(2) = 2.40, P = 0.301], substance type [Q(3) = 6.30, P = 0.098] or device administration [Q(4) = 4.28, P = 0.369]. However, dependent samples (69.80%) had lower compliance rates than non‐dependent samples [76.02%; Q(1) = 4.13, P = 0.042].ConclusionsThe pooled compliance rate for Ecological Momentary Assessment studies in substance‐using populations from 1998 to 2017 was lower than the recommended rate of 80%, and was not associated with frequency or duration of assessments.
Highlights
Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) refers to a variety of research techniques that allow for ‘in the moment’ data capture, which often takes place in naturalistic rather than standard laboratory settings [1]
To code whether participants were trained on the EMA protocol we examined whether there was any mention of training or familiarization sessions (e.g. ‘research assistants... provided a brief training on how to download and navigate the mobile app’ [50], p. 1249)
We demonstrated no evidence that the number of prompt frequency influenced compliance rates, which contradicts recommendations by Burke et al [3], who suggest that random prompts should be limited to a maximum of five per day in order to reduce participant burden
Summary
Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) refers to a variety of research techniques that allow for ‘in the moment’ data capture, which often takes place in naturalistic rather than standard laboratory settings [1]. A typical EMA study may send participants a number of signalled prompts on a portable device When these prompts are received, participants are required to recall their current thoughts, behaviours and feelings; more recent studies have introduced cognitive and behavioural tasks [5,6]. Our aim was to identify the pooled compliance rate of EMA studies in substance users and examine variables that may influence compliance with EMA protocols, such as the length and frequency of assessments. Measurements Compliance data, the proportion of responses to the study protocol, were extracted from each study alongside prompt frequency, total length of assessment period, substance use population and device used to administer EMA prompts. Conclusions The pooled compliance rate for Ecological Momentary Assessment studies in substance-using populations from 1998 to 2017 was lower than the recommended rate of 80%, and was not associated with frequency or duration of assessments
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
