Smartphone App-Based Noncontact Ecological Momentary Assessment With Experienced and Naïve Older Participants: Feasibility Study.
Smartphone App-Based Noncontact Ecological Momentary Assessment With Experienced and Naïve Older Participants: Feasibility Study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/27677
复制
发表时间：
2022-03-08
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Naylor G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burke L;Naylor G
基于智能手机应用程序的生态瞬时评估（EMA）在研究人员和参与者之间没有面对面接触的情况下（基于应用程序的非接触式EMA）可能会在地理，时间和情境因素（例如，COVID-19限制）限制亲自研究时提供有价值的数据收集工具。然而，这种方法的可行性知之甚少，特别是在老年人和天真的EMA参与者中。本研究旨在评估基于应用程序的非接触式EMA作为既往EMA经验的功能的可行性，方法是招募一组从未参加过EMA的参与者，并与一组参加过早期面对面EMA研究的参与者进行比较，年龄是招募中年至老年人。总体而言，通过电子邮件邀请了151名潜在参与者; 46.4%（70/151）通过完成基线问卷集入组研究，并通过电子邮件发送EMA阶段说明。在这些参与者中，67%（47/70）下载了EMA应用程序并运行了1周的调查序列。总共有5个白天的调查和1个晚上的调查，每天评估参与者的听力环境，社会活动和对话参与。一个半结构式的离职电话访谈探讨了该方法的可接受性。作为可行性的标志，我们评估了入组率、研究完成率、未完成原因、EMA调查响应率以及报告调查警报问题的可能性，并请求研究人员、家人或朋友的帮助。有经验的受试者的入学率（63.3%对38.2%; P= 0.004）和入学者的完成率（83.9%对53.8%; P<0.001）高于未接受EMA治疗的受试者。平均而言，有经验的参与者对64.1%（SD 30.2%）的日间EMA调查做出了回应，而天真的参与者对54.3%（SD 29.5%）的日间EMA调查做出了回应（P= 0.27）。在回顾性报告调查警报问题的参与者中，只有19%（3/16）在数据收集期间请求研究人员协助。年龄较大的参与者更有可能报告没有被提醒EMA调查（P= 0.008），但年龄与所有其他可行性标志物无关。对手机操作系统对可行性标记影响的事后分析显示，iOS用户的回复率（平均74.8%，SD 20.25%）高于Android用户（平均48.5%，SD 31.35%; P= 0.002）。基于智能手机应用程序的非接触式EMA似乎是可行的，尽管有EMA经验的参与者、年轻参与者和iOS用户在某些可行性指标上表现更好。提高可行性的措施可能包括使用不同电话类型对应用程序进行广泛测试，鼓励参与者就遇到的任何问题寻求及时帮助，并在可能的情况下招募具有EMA经验的参与者。这项研究的局限性包括参与者与研究人员的现有关系水平不同，以及在COVID-19社会限制期间收集数据的影响。
Smartphone app–based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) without face-to-face contact between researcher and participant (app-based noncontact EMA) potentially provides a valuable data collection tool when geographic, time, and situational factors (eg, COVID-19 restrictions) place constraints on in-person research. Nevertheless, little is known about the feasibility of this method, particularly in older and naïve EMA participants. This study aims to assess the feasibility of app-based noncontact EMA as a function of previous EMA experience, by recruiting and comparing a group of participants who had never participated in EMA before against a group of participants who had been part of an earlier in-person EMA study, and age, by recruiting middle-aged to older adults. Overall, 151 potential participants were invited via email; 46.4% (70/151) enrolled in the study by completing the baseline questionnaire set and were emailed instructions for the EMA phase. Of these participants, 67% (47/70) downloaded an EMA app and ran the survey sequence for 1 week. In total, 5 daytime surveys and 1 evening survey, each day, assessed participants’ listening environment, social activity, and conversational engagement. A semistructured exit telephone interview probed the acceptability of the method. As markers of feasibility, we assessed the enrollment rate, study completion rate, reason for noncompletion, EMA survey response rate, and likelihood of reporting an issue with survey alerts and requested assistance from researchers, family, or friends. Enrollment rates among invitees (63.3% vs 38.2%; P=.004) and completion rates among enrollees (83.9% vs 53.8%; P<.001) were higher in the experienced than in the naïve EMA group. On average, experienced participants responded to 64.1% (SD 30.2%) of the daytime EMA surveys, and naïve participants responded to 54.3% (SD 29.5%) of the daytime EMA surveys (P=.27). Among participants who retrospectively reported issues with survey alerts, only 19% (3/16) requested researcher assistance during data collection. Older participants were more likely to report not being alerted to EMA surveys (P=.008), but age was unrelated to all other markers of feasibility. Post hoc analyses of the effect of the phone operating system on markers of feasibility revealed that response rates were higher among iOS users (mean 74.8%, SD 20.25%) than among Android users (mean 48.5%, SD 31.35%; P=.002). Smartphone app–based noncontact EMA appears to be feasible, although participants with previous EMA experience, younger participants, and iOS users performed better on certain markers of feasibility. Measures to increase feasibility may include extensive testing of the app with different phone types, encouraging participants to seek timely assistance for any issues experienced, and recruiting participants who have some previous EMA experience where possible. The limitations of this study include participants’ varying levels of existing relationship with the researcher and the implications of collecting data during the COVID-19 social restrictions.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
McQuoid, Julia;Thrul, Johannes;Ling, Pamela
通讯作者：
Ling, Pamela
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Levin, Michael E.;Haeger, Jack;Cruz, Rick A.
通讯作者：
Cruz, Rick A.
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
McQuoid, Julia;Thrul, Johannes;Ling, Pamela M.
通讯作者：
Ling, Pamela M.
影响因子：
5.2
作者：
Mills, Jacqueline;Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Matthew
通讯作者：
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Matthew
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
O'Donnell, Renee;Richardson, Ben;Staiger, Petra K.
通讯作者：
Staiger, Petra K.