Cargando…

Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: While there are considerable benefits to Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), poor compliance with assessment protocols has been identified as a limitation, particularly in substance users. Our aim was to identify the pooled compliance rate of EMA studies in substance users an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jones, Andrew, Remmerswaal, Danielle, Verveer, Ilse, Robinson, Eric, Franken, Ingmar H. A., Wen, Cheng K. Fred, Field, Matt
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492133/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30461120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14503
_version_ 1783415088689971200
author Jones, Andrew
Remmerswaal, Danielle
Verveer, Ilse
Robinson, Eric
Franken, Ingmar H. A.
Wen, Cheng K. Fred
Field, Matt
author_facet Jones, Andrew
Remmerswaal, Danielle
Verveer, Ilse
Robinson, Eric
Franken, Ingmar H. A.
Wen, Cheng K. Fred
Field, Matt
author_sort Jones, Andrew
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: While there are considerable benefits to Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), poor compliance with assessment protocols has been identified as a limitation, particularly in substance users. Our aim was to identify the pooled compliance rate of EMA studies in substance users and examine variables that may influence compliance with EMA protocols, such as the length and frequency of assessments. DESIGN: A meta‐analysis and meta‐regression of all possible studies (randomized controlled trials and longitudinal) which incorporated EMA protocols, examining substance use. SETTING: Studies took place from 1998 to 2017, in numerous countries world‐wide. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and twenty‐six studies were identified, contributing a total of 19 431 participants (52.32% male, mean age = 28.86). MEASUREMENTS: Compliance data, the proportion of responses to the study protocol, were extracted from each study alongside prompt frequency, total length of assessment period, substance use population and device used to administer EMA prompts. FINDINGS: The pooled compliance rate across all studies was 75.06% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 72.37%, 77.65%]. There was no evidence that compliance rates were significantly associated with prompt frequency [Q(3) = 7.35, P = 0.061], length of assessment period [Q(2) = 2.40, P = 0.301], substance type [Q(3) = 6.30, P = 0.098] or device administration [Q(4) = 4.28, P = 0.369]. However, dependent samples (69.80%) had lower compliance rates than non‐dependent samples [76.02%; Q(1) = 4.13, P = 0.042]. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled compliance rate for Ecological Momentary Assessment studies in substance‐using populations from 1998 to 2017 was lower than the recommended rate of 80%, and was not associated with frequency or duration of assessments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6492133
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64921332019-05-06 Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis Jones, Andrew Remmerswaal, Danielle Verveer, Ilse Robinson, Eric Franken, Ingmar H. A. Wen, Cheng K. Fred Field, Matt Addiction Reviews BACKGROUND AND AIMS: While there are considerable benefits to Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), poor compliance with assessment protocols has been identified as a limitation, particularly in substance users. Our aim was to identify the pooled compliance rate of EMA studies in substance users and examine variables that may influence compliance with EMA protocols, such as the length and frequency of assessments. DESIGN: A meta‐analysis and meta‐regression of all possible studies (randomized controlled trials and longitudinal) which incorporated EMA protocols, examining substance use. SETTING: Studies took place from 1998 to 2017, in numerous countries world‐wide. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and twenty‐six studies were identified, contributing a total of 19 431 participants (52.32% male, mean age = 28.86). MEASUREMENTS: Compliance data, the proportion of responses to the study protocol, were extracted from each study alongside prompt frequency, total length of assessment period, substance use population and device used to administer EMA prompts. FINDINGS: The pooled compliance rate across all studies was 75.06% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 72.37%, 77.65%]. There was no evidence that compliance rates were significantly associated with prompt frequency [Q(3) = 7.35, P = 0.061], length of assessment period [Q(2) = 2.40, P = 0.301], substance type [Q(3) = 6.30, P = 0.098] or device administration [Q(4) = 4.28, P = 0.369]. However, dependent samples (69.80%) had lower compliance rates than non‐dependent samples [76.02%; Q(1) = 4.13, P = 0.042]. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled compliance rate for Ecological Momentary Assessment studies in substance‐using populations from 1998 to 2017 was lower than the recommended rate of 80%, and was not associated with frequency or duration of assessments. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-12-21 2019-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6492133/ /pubmed/30461120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14503 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Reviews
Jones, Andrew
Remmerswaal, Danielle
Verveer, Ilse
Robinson, Eric
Franken, Ingmar H. A.
Wen, Cheng K. Fred
Field, Matt
Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis
title Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis
title_full Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis
title_short Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis
title_sort compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta‐analysis
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492133/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30461120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14503
work_keys_str_mv AT jonesandrew compliancewithecologicalmomentaryassessmentprotocolsinsubstanceusersametaanalysis
AT remmerswaaldanielle compliancewithecologicalmomentaryassessmentprotocolsinsubstanceusersametaanalysis
AT verveerilse compliancewithecologicalmomentaryassessmentprotocolsinsubstanceusersametaanalysis
AT robinsoneric compliancewithecologicalmomentaryassessmentprotocolsinsubstanceusersametaanalysis
AT frankeningmarha compliancewithecologicalmomentaryassessmentprotocolsinsubstanceusersametaanalysis
AT wenchengkfred compliancewithecologicalmomentaryassessmentprotocolsinsubstanceusersametaanalysis
AT fieldmatt compliancewithecologicalmomentaryassessmentprotocolsinsubstanceusersametaanalysis