Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34855612›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2021

Ecological Momentary Assessment of Weight-Related Behaviors in the Home Environment of Children From Low-Income and Racially and Ethnically Diverse Households: Development and Usability Study.

Amanda Trofholz, Allan Tate, Mark Janowiec, Angela Fertig, Katie Loth, Junia N de Brito, Jerica Berge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Real-time predictors of food parenting practices and child eating behaviors in racially/ethnically diverse families.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

Amanda TrofholzHumphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnestoa, Minneapolis, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2759-8220
Allan TateCollege of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6039-2868
Mark JanowiecHumphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnestoa, Minneapolis, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8387-9916
Angela FertigHumphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnestoa, Minneapolis, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5240-3800
Katie LothHumphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnestoa, Minneapolis, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8934-2522
Junia N de BritoHumphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnestoa, Minneapolis, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0322-2445
Jerica BergeHumphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnestoa, Minneapolis, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3371-351X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is an innovative tool for capturing in-the-moment health behaviors as people go about their daily lives. EMA is an ideal tool to measure weight-related behaviors, such as parental feeding practices, stress, and dietary intake, as these occur on a daily basis and vary across time and context. A recent systematic review recommended standardized reporting of EMA design for studies that address weight-related behaviors.

objectiveTo answer the call for reporting study designs using EMA, this paper describes in detail the EMA design of the Family Matters study and how it was adapted over time to improve functionality and meet the needs of a racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse sample.

methodsFamily Matters is an incremental, 2-phased, mixed methods study, conducted with a racially and ethnically diverse, immigrant and refugee sample from largely low-income households, designed to examine risk and protective factors for child weight and weight-related behaviors in the home environment. The Family Matters study intentionally recruited White, Black, Hmong, Latino, Native American, and Somali parents with young children. Parents in phase 1 of the study completed 8 days of EMA on their smartphones, which included signal-contingent surveys (eg, asking about the parent's stress at the time of the survey), event-contingent surveys (eg, descriptions of the meal the child ate), and end-of-day surveys (eg, overall assessment of the child's day).

resultsA detailed description of EMA strategies, protocols, and methods used in phase 1 of the Family Matters study is provided. Compliance with EMA surveys and participants' time spent completing EMA surveys are presented and stratified by race and ethnicity. In addition, lessons learned while conducting phase 1 EMA are shared to document how EMA methods were improved and expanded upon for phase 2 of the Family Matters study.

conclusionsThe results from this study provided an important next step in identifying best practices for EMA use in assessing weight-related behaviors in the home environment. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30525.

Indexed as

childrenecological momentary assessmentmethodsmobile phoneracially and ethnically diverseweight-related behaviors

Identifiers

PMID34855612
PMCPMC8686482

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.