背景:生态瞬时评估(EMA)是一种测量方法,涉及重复收集有关参与者在其自然环境中的行为和经验的实时数据。虽然EMA允许研究人员获得对动态行为过程的有价值的见解,需要频繁的自我报告可能是繁重和破坏性的。遵守EMA协议对于准确、无偏抽样;然而,EMA研究设计没有“黄金标准”来促进合规性。
目的:这项研究的目的是使用阶乘设计来确定最佳研究设计因素,或多种因素的组合,实现基于智能手机的EMA的最高完成率。
方法:在2×2×2×2设计(32个条件)中,从美国各地招募的参与者被随机分配到5个设计因素中的2个水平中的1个:因子1-每个EMA调查的问题数(15对25);因子2-每天的EMA数量(2对4);因子3-EMA提示时间表(随机与固定时间;基于EMA类型的滑块型反应量表与Likert型反应量表;这是唯一的人内因素;每个参与者在研究期前14天或后14天被随机分配完成滑块型或Likert型问题).要求所有参与者完成提示的EMA28天。检查了每个因素对EMA完成的影响,以及因子相互作用对EMA完成的影响。最后,研究了人口和社会环境因素与EMA完成情况之间的关系。
结果:参与者(N=411)年龄为48.4(SD12.1)岁;75.7%(311/411)为女性,72.5%(298/411)为白人,18.0%(74/411)是黑人或非裔美国人,2.7%(11/411)是亚洲人,1.5%(6/411)是美洲印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民,5.4%(22/411)属于一个以上的种族,9.6%(38/396)为西班牙裔/拉丁裔。平均而言,参与者完成了83.8%(28,948/34,552)的预定EMA,96.6%(397/411)的参与者完成了后续调查。结果表明,设计因素对依从性没有显着的主要影响,也没有显着的相互作用。分析还表明,老年人,那些没有物质使用问题的历史,那些没有当前抑郁症的人往往比他们的同龄人完成更多的EMA。没有其他人口统计学或社会环境因素与EMA完成率相关。最后,该应用程序很受欢迎(即,系统可用性量表得分=82.7),并且在喜欢应用和EMA依从性之间存在统计学上显著的正相关。
结论:研究结果对于制定使用EMA方法的未来研究的最佳实践指南具有广泛的意义。
背景:ClinicalTrials.gov编号NCT05194228;https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05194228。
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a measurement methodology that involves the repeated collection of real-time data on participants\' behavior and experience in their natural environment. While EMA allows researchers to gain valuable insights into dynamic behavioral processes, the need for frequent self-reporting can be burdensome and disruptive. Compliance with EMA protocols is important for accurate, unbiased sampling; yet, there is no \"gold standard\" for EMA study design to promote compliance.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to use a factorial design to identify optimal study design factors, or combinations of factors, for achieving the highest completion rates for smartphone-based EMAs.
METHODS: Participants recruited from across the United States were randomized to 1 of 2 levels on each of 5 design factors in a 2×2×2×2×2 design (32 conditions): factor 1-number of questions per EMA survey (15 vs 25); factor 2-number of EMAs per day (2 vs 4); factor 3-EMA prompting schedule (random vs fixed times); factor 4-payment type (US $1 paid per EMA vs payment based on the percentage of EMAs completed); and factor 5-EMA response scale type (ie, slider-type response scale vs Likert-type response scale; this is the only within-person factor; each participant was randomized to complete slider- or Likert-type questions for the first 14 days or second 14 days of the study period). All participants were asked to complete prompted EMAs for 28 days. The effect of each factor on EMA completion was examined, as well as the effects of factor interactions on EMA completion. Finally, relations between demographic and socioenvironmental factors and EMA completion were examined.
RESULTS: Participants (N=411) were aged 48.4 (SD 12.1) years; 75.7% (311/411) were female, 72.5% (298/411) were White, 18.0% (74/411) were Black or African American, 2.7% (11/411) were Asian, 1.5% (6/411) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 5.4% (22/411) belonged to more than one race, and 9.6% (38/396) were Hispanic/Latino. On average, participants completed 83.8% (28,948/34,552) of scheduled EMAs, and 96.6% (397/411) of participants completed the follow-up survey. Results indicated that there were no significant main effects of the design factors on compliance and no significant interactions. Analyses also indicated that older adults, those without a history of substance use problems, and those without current depression tended to complete more EMAs than their counterparts. No other demographic or socioenvironmental factors were related to EMA completion rates. Finally, the app was well liked (ie, system usability scale score=82.7), and there was a statistically significant positive association between liking the app and EMA compliance.
CONCLUSIONS: Study results have broad implications for developing best practices guidelines for future studies that use EMA methodologies.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT05194228; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05194228.