Trial reportPloS one2021
A randomized community trial to advance digital epidemiological and mHealth citizen scientist compliance: A smart platform study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Association Between Recreational Cannabis Use and 24-hour Movement Behaviours: Perceptions of Youth Citizen Scientists.Journal of adolescence · 2025Article
- Digital citizen science for ethical monitoring of youth physical activity frequency: Comparing mobile ecological prospective assessments and retrospective recall.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Article
- An observational, multigenerational platform for health systems and population health interventions to minimise intergenerational transmission of non-communicable diseases in India: the YUVAAN cohort study protocol.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- How can digital citizen science approaches improve ethical smartphone use surveillance among youth: Traditional surveys versus ecological momentary assessments.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Observational
- DiScO: novel rapid systems mapping to inform digital transformation of health systems.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Traditional surveys versus ecological momentary assessments: Digital citizen science approaches to improve ethical physical activity surveillance among youth.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Article
- Preserving rural school health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Indigenous citizen scientist perspectives from a qualitative study.AIMS public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to understand how participants' compliance and response rates to both traditional validated surveys and ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) vary across 4 cohorts who participated in the same mHealth study and received the same surveys and EMAs on their smartphones, however with cohort-specific time-triggers that differed across the 4 cohorts.
methodsAs part of the Smart Platform, adult citizen scientists residing in Regina and Saskatoon, Canada, were randomly assigned to 4 cohorts in 2018. Citizen Scientists provided a complex series of subjective and objective data during 8 consecutive days using a custom-built smartphone application. All citizen scientists responded to both validated surveys and EMAs that captured physical activity. However, using Smart Platform, we varied the burden of responding to validated surveys and EMAs across cohorts by using different time-triggered push notifications. Participants in Cohort 1 (n = 10) received the full baseline 209-item validated survey on day 1 of the study; whereas participants in cohorts 2 (n = 26), 3 (n = 10), and 4 (n = 25) received the same survey in varied multiple sections over a period of 4 days. We used weighted One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests and weighted, linear regression models to assess for differences in compliance rate across the cohort groups controlling for age, gender, and household income.
resultsCompliance to EMAs that captured prospective physical activity varied across cohorts 1 to 4: 50.0% (95% Confidence Interval [C.I.] = 31.4, 68.6), 63.0% (95% C.I. = 50.7, 75.2), 37.5% (95% C.I. = 18.9, 56.1), and 61.2% (95% C.I. = 47.4, 75.0), respectively. The highest completion rate of physical activity validated surveys was observed in Cohort 4 (mean = 97.9%, 95% C.I. = 95.5, 100.0). This was also true after controlling for age, gender, and household income. The regression analyses showed that citizen scientists in Cohorts 2, 3, and 4 had significantly higher compliance with completing the physical activity validated surveys relative to citizen scientists in cohort group 1 who completed the full survey on the first day. CONCLUSIONS & SIGNIFICANCES: The findings show that maximizing the compliance rates of research participants for digital epidemiological and mHealth studies requires a balance between rigour of data collection, minimization of survey burden, and adjustment of time- and user-triggered notifications based on citizen or patient input.
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.