ArticleBehavior therapy2025
Engagement in Ecological Momentary Assessment of Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Behavior therapy, 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.
- Balancing burden and resolution: Effects of EMA survey schedule on compliance and study evaluation in suicide-focused research.Journal of psychiatric research · 2026Article
- Clinical benefits and challenges of ecological momentary assessment in individuals who self-injure and seek mental health treatment.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
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
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) holds great potential for understanding suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) in real time. However, since the burden of EMA can lower participant engagement, more research is needed to understand how individuals engage with it, particularly during high suicide risk periods. This study aims to better understand participant engagement with EMA using both qualitative and quantitative indices. One hundred adults were enrolled in an EMA study during psychiatric inpatient hospitalization for STBs and completed six brief EMA surveys per day assessing STBs and related factors during hospitalization and for four weeks after. At the end of the study, participants completed a qualitative interview assessing motivations to participate, study perceptions, perspectives on EMA, engagement barriers, and recommendations. Participants completed 14,464 EMA surveys in total, with an average completion rate of 58%. Engagement was higher during hospitalization (66%) than after (54%). In interviews, most found EMA acceptable (59% enjoyed participation), noting that surveys often increased emotional awareness (51%). Some found EMA repetitive or tedious, and only a small minority found it distressing. Primary motivations were financial compensation (73%) and contributing to research (69%). Main barriers were schedules (92%) and momentary distress (60%). Recommendations largely focused on improving EMA administration, such as survey frequency. Most qualitative themes did not significantly differ by EMA engagement, although lower engagers gave more recommendations and had more unique barriers than high engagers. Quantitative and qualitative findings indicate EMA of STBs is generally acceptable during and after psychiatric hospitalization, with important recommendations for improvement. Integrating participant experiences is critical as researchers and clinicians work to optimize EMA with individuals at risk for suicide.
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.