Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32628614›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

Usability and Acceptability of a Smartphone App to Assess Partner Communication, Closeness, Mood, and Relationship Satisfaction: Mixed Methods Study.

Shelby L Langer, Neeta Ghosh, Michael Todd, Ashley K Randall, Joan M Romano, Jonathan B Bricker, Niall Bolger, John W Burns, Rachel C Hagan, Laura S Porter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Couple communication in cancer: A tale of two conceptual models.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Shelby L LangerCenter for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6034-1830
Neeta GhoshClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2010-2237
Michael ToddEdson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1981-4245
Ashley K RandallCounseling and Counseling Psychology, College of Integrative Sciences and Arts, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3794-4163
Joan M RomanoPsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0041-9736
Jonathan B BrickerDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5694-8795
Niall BolgerDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8698-8117
John W BurnsPsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush Medical College, Rush University, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1470-5565
Rachel C HaganCenter for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5906-8881
Laura S PorterPsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2962-2378

Funding

Couple Communication in Cancer: A Multi-Method Examination - Renewal - 1R01CA201179 · NCI · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI Shelby Langer, LAURA S PORTER · 2016 to 2026
$7.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA201179
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterpersonal communication is critical for a healthy romantic relationship. Emotional disclosure, coupled with perceived partner responsiveness, fosters closeness and adjustment (better mood and relationship satisfaction). On the contrary, holding back from disclosure is associated with increased distress and decreased relationship satisfaction. Prior studies assessing these constructs have been cross-sectional and have utilized global retrospective reports of communication. In addition, studies assessing holding back or perceived partner responsiveness have not taken advantage of smartphone ownership for data collection and have instead required website access or use of a study-provided device.

objectiveThis study aimed to examine the (1) usability and acceptability of a smartphone app designed to assess partner communication, closeness, mood, and relationship satisfaction over 14 days and (2) between-person versus within-person variability of key constructs to inform the utility of their capture via ecological momentary assessment using the participants' own handheld devices.

methodsAdult community volunteers in a married or cohabiting partnered relationship received 2 smartphone prompts per day, one in the afternoon and one in the evening, for 14 days. In each prompt, participants were asked whether they had conversed with their partner either since awakening (afternoon prompt) or since the last assessment (evening prompt). If yes, a series of items assessed enacted communication, perceived partner communication, closeness, mood, and relationship satisfaction (evening only). Participants were interviewed by phone, 1 week after the end of the 14-day phase, to assess perceptions of the app. Content analysis was employed to identify key themes.

resultsParticipants (N=27; mean age 36, SD 12 years; 24/27, 89% female; 25/27, 93% white and 2/27, 7% Hispanic) responded to 79.2% (555/701) of the total prompts sent and completed 553 (78.9%) of those assessments. Of the responded prompts, 79.3% (440/555) were characterized by a report of having conversed with one's partner. The app was seen as highly convenient (mean 4.15, SD 0.78, scale: 1-5) and easy to use (mean 4.39, SD 0.70, scale: 1-5). Qualitative analyses indicated that participants found the app generally easy to navigate, but the response window too short (45 min) and the random nature of receiving notifications vexing. With regard to the variability of the app-delivered items, intraclass correlation coefficients were generally <0.40, indicating that the majority of the variability in each measure was at the within-person level. Notable exceptions were enacted disclosure and relationship satisfaction.

conclusionsThe findings of this study support the usability and acceptability of the app, with valuable user input to modify timing windows in future work. The findings also underscore the utility of an intensive repeated-measures approach, given the meaningful day-to-day variation (greater within-person vs between-person variability) in communication and mood.

Indexed as

affectcommunicationdisclosureecological momentary assessmentmobile phonesmartphone

Identifiers

PMID32628614
PMCPMC7381078

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.