Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24067298›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2013

Monitoring dietary intake and physical activity electronically: feasibility, usability, and ecological validity of a mobile-based Ecological Momentary Assessment tool.

Jorinde Eline Spook, Theo Paulussen, Gerjo Kok, Pepijn Van Empelen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Self-monitoring physical activity with a smartphone application in cancer patients: a randomized feasibility study (SMART-trial).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A novel ecological momentary assessment app for the investigation of daily cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors: a feasibility study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Experience Sampling as a dietary assessment method: a scoping review towards implementation.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jorinde Eline SpookFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands. jorinde.spook@tno.nl
Theo Paulussen
Gerjo Kok
Pepijn Van Empelen
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the growing body of research on complex lifestyle behaviors (eg, Dietary Intake [DI] and Physical Activity [PA]), monitoring of these behaviors has been hampered by a lack of suitable methods. A possible solution to this deficiency is mobile-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA), which enables researchers to collect data on participants' states in real-time by means of a smartphone application. However, feasibility, usability, and ecological validity need to be anticipated and managed in order to enhance the validity of mEMA.

objectiveTo examine the feasibility, usability, and ecological validity of a mEMA application (app) with regard to DI and PA among Dutch vocational education students.

methodsThe students (n=30) participated in the mEMA study for seven consecutive days. They downloaded the mEMA app on their smartphone. Feasibility and usability of the mEMA app were evaluated by completing an online evaluation after seven days of participation. Ecological validity was measured by assessing the degree to which the content of the mEMA app approximated the real-world setting that was being examined, through several multiple-choice questions.

resultsCompliance rates, as registered by the mEMA app, declined 46% over a seven-day period, while self-reported compliance, as measured with an online evaluation questionnaire afterwards, indicated a smaller decrease in compliance (29%). The students evaluated the mEMA app as feasible and usable. Ecological validity analyses showed that all DI and almost all PA multiple-choice options were covered with the compound response categories.

conclusionsThe mEMA app offers the opportunity to assess complex health behaviors (eg, DI and PA) in real-time settings, in which specifically routinized behaviors are involved. However, the mEMA app faced several challenges that needed to be overcome in order to improve its validity. Overall, the present study showed that the mEMA app is a usable and ecologically valid tool to measure DI and PA behaviors among vocational education students, but compliance is still limited.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorMobile ApplicationsAdolescentDietEatingFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMotor ActivityNetherlandsReproducibility of ResultsStudentsTelemedicineVocational Educationdietary intakeecological validityfeasibilitymobile-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA)physical activityusability

Identifiers

PMID24067298
PMCPMC3785990
OpenAlexW2056605849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.