ArticleBMC nursing2025
Feasibility and adherence to ecological momentary assessment among community-dwelling adults with suicide risk.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. 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.
- Detecting Binge Eating Risk With Naturalistic Data and Machine Learning: A Comparative Observational Study.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) has seen increasing application in mental health research. However, there is a challenge in applying EMA to assess daily suicide risk in community settings due to poor adherence to the complex protocol and high dropout rates. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and adherence to the EMA when monitoring the daily risk of suicide in community-dwelling adults with suicidal ideation.
methodsThis secondary analysis was based on primary data from an observational study. The study participants with suicidal ideation responded to a 28-day EMA online survey and pressed an event marker on an actigraphic device when feeling strong suicidal impulses. Feasibility was evaluated using the EMA response rate and actigraphic device adherence rate based on descriptive statistics. Mental health characteristics related to feasibility were assessed in self-reporting questionnaires, and nonparametric correlation coefficients were identified to assess the relevance to feasibility.
resultsA total of 22 participants were enrolled, with 20 remaining in the final sample (90.9%). The average EMA response rate was 82.05%, decreasing from 86.96% during the first 2 weeks to 76.31% in the second 2 weeks. The Actiwatch adherence rate was maintained at 98.1%. Actiwatch adherence and EMA response rates were moderately correlated (r =.53, p =.016). Higher depression and anxiety scores were associated with lower Actiwatch adherence, whereas a higher perceived stress score was associated with lower EMA response rates. The peak of suicidal impulse patterns in event button activations usually occurred between 9 to 10 pm, while activations were lowest in the early morning hours, particularly between 4 and 6 am. DISCUSSION: This study indicated that EMA using smartphones and actigraphic devices were feasible to monitor suicidal ideation and impulse for a month in community-dwelling adults; thus, it could be a complementary tool to assess daily suicide risk. However, there are still challenges to be overcome when EMA-based monitoring in the community is used for those with mental vulnerability. Thus, mental health professionals should carefully tailor the pros and cons of EMA based on our findings to enhance this vulnerable group's participation and adherence to EMA for suicide prevention.
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.