Trial reportTranslational behavioral medicine2024
A preliminary randomized trial of reinforcement contingencies to improve compliance with ecological momentary assessment.
Trial report in Translational behavioral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) methods are increasingly used by translational scientists to study real-world behavior and experience. The ability to draw meaningful conclusions from EMA research depends upon participant compliance with assessment completion. Most EMA studies provide financial compensation for compliance, but little empirical evidence addresses the impact of reinforcement parameters on the level of compliance. The purpose of this study-within-a-trial was to determine the effects of varying the amount and frequency of reinforcement on EMA compliance in a clinical sample of individuals seeking treatment for cigarette smoking. In the parent clinical trial, participants were asked to complete 9 weeks of EMA (1 daily Morning Assessment and 4 daily Random Assessments). Following a 5-week Standard Payment phase for EMA compliance, 61 individuals seeking treatment for cigarette smoking enrolled in the larger clinical trial were randomized to receive Standard ($1 per assessment, paid biweekly), Frequent ($1 per assessment, paid 3 times per week), or Large ($2 per assessment, paid biweekly) payments for EMA compliance during a 4-week Payment Manipulation Phase. Overall, receiving Frequent or Large payments did not improve EMA compliance compared to Standard payments, Ps > .30. Varying frequency and amount of remuneration for EMA compliance did not generally improve compliance in an ongoing clinical trial, raising further questions about the importance of reinforcement parameters in promoting EMA compliance.
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.