Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30461120›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2019

Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta-analysis.

Andrew Jones, Danielle Remmerswaal, Ilse Verveer, Eric Robinson, Ingmar H A Franken, Cheng K Fred Wen, Matt Field

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05194228 (Exemplar), which is not on this map. Cited by 217 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
217citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
19.6field-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.

NCT05194228 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Exemplar: Determining the Best Practices for EMA Studies

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OklahomaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled416ConditionsEcological Momentary Assessment Best PracticesArmsEcologial Momentary Assessment settings
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

217 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 317 citations in OpenAlex.

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

157 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Andrew JonesPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5951-889X
Danielle RemmerswaalDepartment of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ilse VerveerDepartment of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Eric RobinsonPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK.
Ingmar H A FrankenDepartment of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Cheng K Fred WenCenter for Self-Report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Matt FieldPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/N016211/1Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1Medical Research Council MR/N000218/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsWhile there are considerable benefits to Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), poor compliance with assessment protocols has been identified as a limitation, particularly in substance users. Our aim was to identify the pooled compliance rate of EMA studies in substance users and examine variables that may influence compliance with EMA protocols, such as the length and frequency of assessments.

designA meta-analysis and meta-regression of all possible studies (randomized controlled trials and longitudinal) which incorporated EMA protocols, examining substance use.

settingStudies took place from 1998 to 2017, in numerous countries world-wide.

participantsOne hundred and twenty-six studies were identified, contributing a total of 19 431 participants (52.32% male, mean age = 28.86). MEASUREMENTS: Compliance data, the proportion of responses to the study protocol, were extracted from each study alongside prompt frequency, total length of assessment period, substance use population and device used to administer EMA prompts.

findingsThe pooled compliance rate across all studies was 75.06% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 72.37%, 77.65%]. There was no evidence that compliance rates were significantly associated with prompt frequency [Q(3) = 7.35, P = 0.061], length of assessment period [Q(2) = 2.40, P = 0.301], substance type [Q(3) = 6.30, P = 0.098] or device administration [Q(4) = 4.28, P = 0.369]. However, dependent samples (69.80%) had lower compliance rates than non-dependent samples [76.02%; Q(1) = 4.13, P = 0.042].

conclusionsThe pooled compliance rate for Ecological Momentary Assessment studies in substance-using populations from 1998 to 2017 was lower than the recommended rate of 80%, and was not associated with frequency or duration of assessments.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingEcological Momentary AssessmentAdultDrug UsersFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMobile ApplicationsResearch DesignSmokersSubstance-Related DisordersAddictioncompliancedependenceecological momentary assessmentmeta-analysissubstance use

Identifiers

PMID30461120
PMCPMC6492133
OpenAlexW2907787119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.