Trial Participants' Perceptions of the Impact of Ecological Momentary Assessment on Smoking Behaviors: Qualitative Analysis.

Background: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is an increasingly used tool for data collection in behavioral research, including smoking cessation studies. As previous addiction research suggests, EMA has the potential to elicit cue reactivity by triggering craving and increasing behavioral awareness. However, there has been limited evaluation of its potential influence on behavior. Objective: By examining the perspectives of research participants enrolled in a tobacco treatment intervention trial, this qualitative analysis aims to understand the potential impact that EMA use may have had on smoking behaviors that may not have otherwise been captured through other study measures. Methods: We performed a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with participants enrolled in a pilot randomized controlled trial of a tobacco treatment intervention that used SMS text messaging to collect EMA data on smoking behaviors. In the pilot randomized controlled trial, combustible cigarette and e-cigarette use and smoking-related cravings were measured as part of an EMA protocol, in which SMS text messaging served as a smoking diary. SMS text messaging was intended for data collection only and not designed to serve as part of the intervention. After a baseline assessment, participants were asked to record daily nicotine use for 12 weeks by responding to text message prompts that they received 4 times per day. Participants were prompted to share their experiences with the EMA text messaging component of the trial but were not directly asked about the influence of EMA on their behaviors. Transcripts were coded according to the principles of the framework for applied research. The codes were then examined, summarized, and grouped into themes based on the principles of grounded theory. Results: Interviews were analyzed for 26 participants. The themes developed from the analysis suggested the potential for EMA, in the form of an SMS text messaging smoking diary, to influence participants' smoking behaviors. The perceived impacts of EMA text messaging on smoking behaviors were polarized; some participants emphasized the positive impacts of text messages on their efforts to reduce smoking, while others stressed the ways that text messaging negatively impacted their smoking reduction efforts. These contrasting experiences were captured by themes reflecting the positive impacts on smoking behaviors, including increased awareness of smoking behaviors and a sense of accountability, and the negative impacts on emotions and smoking behaviors, including provoking a sense of guilt and triggering smoking behaviors. Conclusions: The collection of EMA smoking behavior data via SMS text messaging may influence the behaviors and perceptions of participants in tobacco treatment interventions. More research is needed to determine the magnitude of impact and mechanisms, to account for the potential effects of EMA. A broader discussion of the unintended effects introduced by EMA use is warranted among the research community.