Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35975950›Full record

SynthesisHealth psychology review2022

Understanding health behaviours in context: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies of five key health behaviours.

Olga Perski, Jan Keller, Dimitra Kale, Bernard Yeboah-Asiamah Asare, Verena Schneider, Daniel Powell, Felix Naughton, Gill Ten Hoor, Peter Verboon, Dominika Kwasnicka

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health psychology review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Olga PerskiDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3285-3174
Jan KellerDepartment of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Dimitra KaleDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Bernard Yeboah-Asiamah AsareCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1381-4981
Verena SchneiderDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel PowellHealth Psychology, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4995-6057
Felix NaughtonBehavioural and Implementation Science Research Group, School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9790-2796
Gill Ten HoorDepartment of Work and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5500-1893
Peter VerboonFaculty of Psychology, Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8656-0890
Dominika KwasnickaFaculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5961-837X

Funding

Cancer Research UK C1417/A22962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) involves repeated, real-time sampling of health behaviours in context. We present the state-of-knowledge in EMA research focused on five key health behaviours (physical activity and sedentary behaviour, dietary behaviour, alcohol consumption, tobacco smoking, sexual health), summarising theoretical (e.g., psychological and contextual predictors) and methodological aspects (e.g., study characteristics, EMA adherence). We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science until February 2021. We included studies focused on any of the aforementioned health behaviours in adult, non-clinical populations that assessed ≥1 psychological/contextual predictor and reported a predictor-behaviour association. A narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses of EMA adherence were conducted. We included 633 studies. The median study duration was 14 days. The most frequently assessed predictors were 'negative feeling states' (21%) and 'motivation and goals' (16.5%). The pooled percentage of EMA adherence was high at 81.4% (95% CI = 80.0%, 82.8%,

Indexed as

Ecological Momentary AssessmentSedentary BehaviorAdultExerciseHealth BehaviorHumansResearch DesignAmbulatory assessmentecological momentary assessmentexperience samplinghealth psychologymeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35975950
PMCPMC9704370

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.