ArticleBMC research notes2024
The feasibility and acceptability of using EMA and physiological data to measure day-to-day occupational stress, musculoskeletal pain and mental health.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of using EMA questionnaires and physiological data via wristbands to measure day-to-day occupational stress, musculoskeletal pain, and mental health among university employees (N = 23), across 10 work days. Adherence to the study protocol as well as participant experiences (via semi-structured interviews) with the protocol were used to assess feasibility and acceptability of the method.
resultsAdherence to the study protocol was excellent. Participants wore the wristband for a mean of 9.7 days. Participants completed a mean of 24.5 EMAs (out of 30). Semi-structured interviews with participants revealed that a small number of participants had difficulties uploading data from the wristband. The timing of EMAs was challenging for some participants, resulting in missed EMAs, raising questions about whether EMA frequency and timing could be changed to improve adherence. Some EMA items were difficult to answer due to the nature of participants' roles and the work undertaken. Overall, the protocol was feasible and acceptable but highlighted future potential changes including using a different physiological data collection tool, reducing the number of EMAs, adjusting EMA timings, and reviewing EMA items.
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.