Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33905971›Full record

ArticleEating behaviors2021

Baseline and momentary predictors of ecological momentary assessment adherence in a sample of adults with binge-eating disorder.

Gail A Williams-Kerver, Lauren M Schaefer, Vivienne M Hazzard, Li Cao, Scott G Engel, Carol B Peterson, Stephen A Wonderlich, Ross D Crosby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eating behaviors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Gail A Williams-KerverSanford Center for Bio-behavioral Research, Fargo, ND, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Fargo, ND, United States of America. Electronic address: gail.williams@sanfordhealth.org.
Lauren M SchaeferSanford Center for Bio-behavioral Research, Fargo, ND, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Fargo, ND, United States of America.
Vivienne M HazzardSanford Center for Bio-behavioral Research, Fargo, ND, United States of America.
Li CaoSanford Center for Bio-behavioral Research, Fargo, ND, United States of America.
Scott G EngelSanford Center for Bio-behavioral Research, Fargo, ND, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Fargo, ND, United States of America.
Carol B PetersonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America.
Stephen A WonderlichSanford Center for Bio-behavioral Research, Fargo, ND, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Fargo, ND, United States of America.
Ross D CrosbySanford Center for Bio-behavioral Research, Fargo, ND, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Fargo, ND, United States of America.

Funding

Regional Postdoctoral Training Grant in Eating Disorders ResearchT32MH082761 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI CAROL B. PETERSON · 2009 to 2026
$6.2M
Integrative Cognitive Affective Therapy for Binge Eating DisorderR34MH098995 · NIMH · SANFORD RESEARCH NORTH · PI WONDERLICH, STEPHEN ARTHUR · 2013 to 2015
$696k
NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH098995NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH082761
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) is a widely used methodology to examine psychological and behavioral phenomena among individuals with eating disorders (EDs). While EMA overcomes limitations associated with traditional retrospective self-report, it remains subject to potential methodological limitations, including poor adherence to the EMA protocol, which may bias findings. Little is known about baseline and momentary predictors of missing EMA data in ED research; however, such work may help clarify the correlates of missingness and illuminate steps to address potential bias. The purpose of this study was to investigate predictors of EMA adherence in a sample of adults with binge-eating disorder (BED) enrolled in a randomized treatment trial. Prior to treatment, 110 patients completed self-report questionnaires assessing demographics, psychopathology, and transdiagnostic risk/maintenance factors. Participants then responded to EMA questions regarding their eating behavior and internal states six times a day for seven days. A series of generalized-linear and mixed-effect models were conducted to examine baseline and momentary predictors of EMA adherence. No significant baseline predictors were identified, suggesting that participants' overall level of missing data was not related to person-level characteristics (e.g., gender, level of ED pathology). However, lower positive affect, lower hunger, signals later in the day, later days in the EMA protocol, and missed prior signals predicted greater odds of signal non-response, suggesting certain contextual factors may impact the likelihood that a participant with BED will respond to the subsequent EMA signal. Ultimately, these findings have implications for future eating disorder EMA research.

Indexed as

Binge-Eating DisorderFeeding and Eating DisordersAdultEcological Momentary AssessmentFeeding BehaviorHumansRetrospective StudiesAdherenceEating disordersEcological momentary assessment (EMA)Missing data

Identifiers

PMID33905971
PMCPMC8453583

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.