SynthesisAustralian occupational therapy journal2026
Real-time experience: A systematic review of ecological momentary assessments of everyday functioning in major depressive disorder.
Synthesis in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Real-time experience: A systematic review of ecological momentary assessments of everyday functioning in major depressive disorder.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Correction to 'Real-time experience: A systematic review of ecological momentary assessments of everyday functioning in major depressive disorder'.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent, episodic and recurrent condition that adversely affects function across everyday life. Recent studies highlight the importance of everyday function in MDD treatment. Given the dynamic nature of everyday functioning, using comprehensive and real-time data collection, such as ecological momentary assessments (EMA), is necessary. Although mood disorder research widely uses EMA, its clinical use to assess everyday function is limited. Therefore, this article aimed to provide an in-depth review of everyday function domains assessed by EMA in MDD.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, Web of Science and Scopus using search terms related to MDD and EMA, from database inception through October 2025. Analysis focused on identifying functional domains, mapping EMA clinical applications, sampling methods and psychometric properties. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: No consumer and community involvement was included in this study.
resultsOf 46,271 records, 39 met the inclusion criteria. Seven domains were identified: rest and sleep, social participation, daily activities, physical activity, media use, leisure and health management. Beyond monitoring activity patterns, our mapping revealed EMA's unique value in capturing behaviour-emotion interactions and contextual influences. This within-person focus uncovers real-time dynamic mechanisms rather than static deficits. Methods were diverse but demonstrated high compliance, confirming EMA's feasibility.
conclusionEMA offers a unique pathway to bridge the gap between clinical research and functional recovery. By providing high-resolution data on real-time everyday functioning, EMA enables the design of precision psychiatry interventions tailored to individual occupational patterns. Implementing these ecological assessments can facilitate a transition from generalized care to human-centred, responsive treatments that directly address daily life barriers.
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.