Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29096315›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental research2018

Total recall in the SCAMP cohort: Validation of self-reported mobile phone use in the smartphone era.

Michael O Mireku, William Mueller, Charlotte Fleming, Irene Chang, Iroise Dumontheil, Michael S C Thomas, Marloes Eeftens, Paul Elliott, Martin Röösli, Mireille B Toledano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

10 authors.

Michael O MirekuMRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Health Impact of Environmental Hazards at King's College London and Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK.
William MuellerMRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Health Impact of Environmental Hazards at King's College London and Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK; Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK.
Charlotte FlemingMRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Health Impact of Environmental Hazards at King's College London and Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK.
Irene ChangMRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Health Impact of Environmental Hazards at King's College London and Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK.
Iroise DumontheilDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, WC1E 7HX, UK.
Michael S C ThomasDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, WC1E 7HX, UK.
Marloes EeftensDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, 4051 Basel, Switzerland.
Paul ElliottMRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Health Impact of Environmental Hazards at King's College London and Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK.
Martin RöösliDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, 4051 Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, 4001 Basel, Switzerland.
Mireille B ToledanoMRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Health Impact of Environmental Hazards at King's College London and Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England, Imperial College London, W2 1PG, UK. Electronic address: m.toledano@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0801056Medical Research Council MR/L01341X/1Medical Research Council MR/L01632X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobile phone use, predominantly smartphones, is almost ubiquitous amongst both adults and children. However adults and children have different usage patterns. A major challenge with research on mobile phone use is the reliability of self-reported phone activity for accurate exposure assessment. We investigated the agreement between self-reported mobile phone use data and objective mobile operator traffic data in a subset of adolescents aged 11-12 years participating in the Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phones (SCAMP) cohort. We examined self-reported mobile phone use, including call frequency, cumulative call time duration and text messages sent among adolescents from SCAMP and matched these data with records provided by mobile network operators (n = 350). The extent of agreement between self-reported mobile phone use and mobile operator traffic data use was evaluated using Cohen's weighted Kappa (ĸ) statistics. Sensitivity and specificity of self-reported low (< 1 call/day, ≤ 5min of call/day or ≤ 5 text messages sent/day) and high (≥ 11 calls/day, > 30min of call/day or ≥ 11 text messages sent /day) use were estimated. Agreement between self-reported mobile phone use and mobile operator traffic data was highest for the duration spent talking on mobile phones per day on weekdays (38.9%) and weekends (29.4%) compared to frequency of calls and number of text messages sent. Adolescents overestimated their mobile phone use during weekends compared to weekdays. Analysis of agreement showed little difference overall between the sexes and socio-economic groups. Weighted kappa between self-reported and mobile operator traffic data for call frequency during weekdays was κ = 0.12, 95% CI 0.06-0.18. Of the three modes of mobile phone use measured in the questionnaire, call frequency was the most sensitive for low mobile phone users on weekdays and weekends (77.1, 95% CI: 69.3-83.7 and 72.0, 95% CI: 65.0-78.4, respectively). Specificity was moderate to high for high users with the highest for call frequency during weekdays (98.4, 95% CI: 96.4-99.5). Despite differential agreement between adolescents' self-reported mobile phone use and mobile operator traffic data, our findings demonstrate that self-reported usage adequately distinguishes between high and low use. The greater use of mobile smartphones over Wi-Fi networks by adolescents, as opposed to mobile phone networks, means operator data are not the gold standard for exposure assessment in this age group. This has important implications for epidemiologic research on the health effects of mobile phone use in adolescents.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneCell Phone UseSelf ReportSmartphoneChildCognitionFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentsExposure measurement errorMobile phonesSCAMP

Identifiers

PMID29096315
PMCPMC5773244

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.