Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32429834›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Frequently repeated measurements -our experience of collecting data with SMS.

I Axén, I Jensen, E Butler Forslund, B Grahn, V Jørgensen, C H Opava, L Bodin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. 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

7 authors.

I AxénInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for Worker Health, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 13, S- 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. iben.axen@ki.se.
I JensenInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for Worker Health, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 13, S- 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
E Butler ForslundRehab Station Stockholm, Research and Development Unit, Stockholm, Sweden.
B GrahnDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, Faculty of medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
V JørgensenResearch Departement, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Bjørnemyrveien 11, N-1453, Bjørnemyr, Norway.
C H OpavaDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Physiotherapy, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
L BodinInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for Worker Health, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 13, S- 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Text MessagingChronic DiseaseData AccuracyData CollectionHumansInfant, NewbornSwedenComplianceEcological momentary assessmentRepeated measuresText message

Identifiers

PMID32429834
PMCPMC7236444

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.