ArticleStress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress2024
Exploring the Utility of a Real-Time Approach to Characterising Within-Person Fluctuations in Everyday Stress Responses.
Article in Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 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.
- From Who experiences stress to When It Occurs: Revisiting Lazarus' transactional model of stress using an ecological momentary assessment framework.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Real-time Ecological Assessment of the Context of mental and physical Health (REACH) on Curious.Research square · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Few studies have measured components of stress responses in real time-an essential step in designing just-in-time interventions targeting moments of risk. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), we characterised stress response components to everyday stressors, including reactivity (the response following a stressor), recovery (the return towards baseline), and pile-up (the accumulation of stressors) (RRPs) by quantifying the dynamics of response indicators (i.e., subjective stress, negative affect, and perseverative cognition). To determine the utility of these novel measures in capturing and characterising acute moments of the stress response, this study evaluated the proportion of variance in RRPs attributed to (1) between-person, (2) between-days, and (3) within-day (momentary) levels. Healthy adults (n = 123; aged 35-65, 79% women, 91% non-Hispanic White) participated in a 14-day study assessing stress response via EMA 6 times a day. RRPs were constructed from 10,065 EMA reports. Multilevel models with moments nested within days nested within persons were used to partition variance in the RRPs. Reactivity and recovery indicators captured the most variation within-days (i.e., across moments; range 76%-80% and 87%-89%, respectively), with small amounts of variance between-person. For pile-up, variation was mostly observed between-days (range 60%-63%) and between-persons (range 27%-31%). In contrast, raw measures of stress response reflected substantial between-person (range 32%-54%) and within-day (range 34%-53%) variance. These results demonstrated that a person-specific approach to measuring stress response components (i.e., RRPs) can capture the dynamic within-person variation in stress response, as it occurs in real time, making it well-suited for use in novel just-in-time interventions targeting moments of risk.
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.