Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34282659›Full record

ArticleAssessment2022

Compliance in Ambulatory Assessment Studies: Investigating Study and Sample Characteristics as Predictors.

Charlotte Ottenstein, Linda Werner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Assessment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

2 authors.

Charlotte OttensteinUniversity of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0592-765X
Linda WernerUniversity of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ambulatory assessment (AA) studies are becoming more and more popular. However, it can be challenging to motivate participants to comply with study protocols. The aim of the present study was to investigate possible predictors of compliance in AA studies with diverse samples and study designs. To do so, we extracted compliance information, study characteristics, and sample characteristics from 488 previously published studies. The average compliance across the studies was rather high. The total number of measurement occasions and the number of study days were negatively related to the compliance rate. Moreover, a higher percentage of healthy controls in clinical studies was associated with a higher compliance rate. By contrast, other study characteristics (e.g., the amount of financial compensation) and sample characteristics (clinical vs. healthy sample) were not related to compliance. The findings have implications for the design of future AA studies.

Indexed as

Ecological Momentary AssessmentResearch DesignHumansPatient Complianceadherenceambulatory assessmentcompliancedaily diary studyecological momentary assessmentexperience sampling method

Identifiers

PMID34282659
PMCPMC9597150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.