Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29518701›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2018

A geographically explicit ecological momentary assessment (GEMA) mixed method for understanding substance use.

Julia McQuoid, Johannes Thrul, Pamela Ling

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia McQuoidCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Ave, Suite 366, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. Electronic address: julia.mcquoid@ucsf.edu.
Johannes ThrulBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Pamela LingCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Ave, Suite 366, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Countering Young Adult Tobacco Marketing in BarsU01CA154240 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2011 to 2015
$6.1M
Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlT32CA113710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA113710NCI NIH HHS U01 CA154240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tobacco use is increasingly concentrated within marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ young adults. Developing tailored interventions to reduce tobacco-related health disparities requires understanding the mechanisms linking individual and contextual factors associated with tobacco use to behavior. This paper presents an in-depth exploration of three cases from a novel mixed method study designed to identify the situational factors and place-based practices of substance use among high-risk individuals. We combined geographically explicit ecological momentary assessment (GEMA) with an adapted travel diary-interview method. Participants (young adult bisexual smokers, ages 18-26) reported on non-smoking and smoking situations for 30 days with a smartphone app. GEMA surveys captured internal and external situational factors (e.g., craving intensity, location type, seeing others smoking). Continuous locational data was collected via smartphone GPS. Subsequently, participants completed in-depth interviews reviewing maps of their own GEMA data. GEMA data and transcripts were analyzed separately and integrated at the case level in a matrix. Using GEMA maps to guide the interview grounded discussion in participants' everyday smoking situations and routines. Interviews clarified participant interpretation of GEMA measures and revealed experiences and meanings of smoking locations and practices. The GEMA method identified the most frequent smoking locations/times for each participant (e.g., afternoons at university). Interviews provided description of associated situational factors and perceptions of smoking contexts (e.g., peer rejection of bisexual identity) and the roles of smoking therein (e.g., physically escape uncomfortable environments). In conclusion, this mixed method contributes to advancing qualitative GIS and other hypothesis-generating approaches working to reveal the richness of individuals' experiences of the everyday contexts of health behavior, while also providing reliable measures of situational predictors of behaviors of interest, such as substance use. Limitations of and future directions for the method are discussed.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesAdolescentAdultEcological Momentary AssessmentFemaleGeographic Information SystemsHealth SurveysHumansMaleQualitative ResearchRisk FactorsSexual and Gender MinoritiesSmokersTobacco UseUnited StatesYoung AdultEcological momentary assessmentGeolocationHealth disparitiesQualitative GISSexual and gender minoritiesSpace-time geographyTobaccoUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29518701
PMCPMC5879013
OpenAlexW2792374590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.