ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Frequently repeated measurements -our experience of collecting data with SMS.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Synthesis of evidence on the use of ecological momentary assessments to monitor health outcomes after traumatic injury: rapid systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- The effectiveness of a problem-solving intervention with workplace involvement on self-reported sick leave, psychological symptoms and work ability: a cluster randomised clinical trial.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Are psychosocial work factors and work-home interference associated with time to first full return-to-work after sick leave due to common mental disorders?International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2023Trial
- Factors Associated With Clinical Responses to Spinal Manipulation in Patients With Non-specific Thoracic Back Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs technology is advancing, so are the possibilities for new data collection methods in research, potentially improving data quality and validity of the results. In Sweden, a system using frequent repeated data collection using text messages, SMS Track, has been used in clinical research for more than a decade. In this paper, compliance with repeated text message questions was examined across five different studies, i.e. if compliance was 1: associated with study-specific factors (age or gender of the subjects, the condition, its' severity or course, i.e. improvement, relapse or steady state) and/or. 2: associated with the methodology itself (the question being asked, the frequency and number of questions, duration of data collection, initial compliance or the management of the system).
methodsDescriptive comparisons were done across five studies. Three studies were collecting weekly responses over at least 52 weeks ("Weekly studies") and were used to investigate the effect of age, sex and pain severity on compliance, the effect of early compliance for late compliance, and finally the early occurrence of two successive weeks with non-compliance.
resultCompliance was excellent across all five studies, and only influenced somewhat by age, sex and pain-level. The factor "study" remained significant in the final model thus the observed differences may be a result of the conditions studied but does not seem to be attributable to severity or development of these conditions. Number and frequency of questions did not influence compliance, nor did study duration.
conclusionsCompliance was excellent in the included studies and was not affected by population factors. However, differences in compliance were observed that cannot be easily explained and warrant further investigation. In particular, the nature of the variables or the management of the study are potential areas for further investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.