ArticlePsychological assessment2025
How do participant preferences, expectancies, and perceptions of ecological momentary assessment impact adherence? A mixed-methods analysis.
Article in Psychological assessment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating Digital Health Data into Clinical Practice: Perspectives and Practical Recommendations.Practice innovations (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical researchers using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods design study protocols to optimize adherence. These decisions can sacrifice the scope, temporal granularity, and observational power of resultant data and are often based on limited empirical evidence. The present mixed-methods study queried participant preferences on EMA design and expectancies regarding a hypothetical EMA protocol (Sample 1, N = 1,495). We used a concurrent triangulation approach to analyze quantitative survey and qualitative interview data assessing implementation outcomes from a subset of Sample 1 individuals (a majority of whom reported clinical levels of anxiety/stress or frequent alcohol use) who enrolled and completed at least 2 weeks EMA (Sample 2; n = 59). Participants completed three EMA surveys for up to 112 days (M = 76.8 days, SD = 37.88) with an average within-person compliance of 73.8% (SD = 17.18). Descriptive statistics and a hybrid inductive-deductive coding approach were used to analyze quantitative and qualitative data, respectively, to understand factors that influence adherence. Participants perceived daily variability in most health-related domains (e.g., mental health symptoms, rest) and frequently reported positive expectations for EMA (e.g., anticipated increased awareness). Most participants reported that EMA helped increase awareness of their daily patterns (n = 37, 62.7%) but that study protocols were long and burdensome (n = 44, 74.6%). Qualitative themes were related to deductive implementation outcomes with significant inductive nuances that varied by level of adherence. Results help to guide EMA protocol decisions to improve adherence based on participant preferences, expectations, and experiences during EMA. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.