Selecting an Ecological Momentary Assessment Platform: Tutorial for Researchers.

BACKGROUND: Although ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been applied in psychological research for decades, delivery methods have evolved with the proliferation of digital technology. Technological advances have engendered opportunities for enhanced accessibility, convenience, measurement precision, and integration with wearable sensors. Notwithstanding, researchers must navigate novel complexities in EMA research design and implementation. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to provide guidance on platform selection for clinical scientists launching EMA studies. METHODS: Our team includes diverse specialties in child and adolescent behavioral and mental health with varying expertise on EMA platforms (eg, users and developers). We (2 research sites) evaluated EMA platforms with the goal of identifying the platform or platforms with the best fit for our research. We created a list of extant EMA platforms; conducted a web-based review; considered institutional security, privacy, and data management requirements; met with developers; and evaluated each of the candidate EMA platforms for 1 week. RESULTS: We selected 2 different EMA platforms, rather than a single platform, for use at our 2 research sites. Our results underscore the importance of platform selection driven by individualized and prioritized laboratory needs; there is no single, ideal platform for EMA researchers. In addition, our project generated 11 considerations for researchers in selecting an EMA platform: (1) location; (2) developer involvement; (3) sample characteristics; (4) onboarding; (5) survey design features; (6) sampling scheme and scheduling; (7) viewing results; (8) dashboards; (9) security, privacy, and data management; (10) pricing and cost structure; and (11) future directions. Furthermore, our project yielded a suggested timeline for the EMA platform selection process. CONCLUSIONS: This study will guide scientists initiating studies using EMA, an in vivo, real-time research tool with tremendous promise for facilitating advances in psychological assessment and intervention.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pain Management of Children With Limb Fractures or Suspected Appendicitis: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

Objective: To evaluate whether racial/ethnical differences in analgesia administration existed in two different cohorts of children with painful conditions: children with either limb fracture or suspected appendicitis. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of children visiting a pediatric emergency department (Boston Children Hospital) for limb fracture or suspected appendicitis from 2011 to 2015. We computed the proportion of children that received any analgesic treatment and any opioid analgesia. We performed multivariable logistic regressions to investigate race/ethnicity differences in analgesic and opioid administration, after adjusting for pain score, demographics and visit covariates. Results: Among the 8,347 children with a limb fracture and the 4,780 with suspected appendicitis, 65.0 and 60.9% received any analgesic treatment, and 35.9 and 33.4% an opioid analgesia, respectively. Compared to White non-Hispanic Children, Black non-Hispanic children and Hispanic children were less likely to receive opioid analgesia in both the limb fracture cohort [Black: aOR = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50-0.75); Hispanic aOR = 0.66 (95% CI, 0.55-0.80)] and in the suspected appendicitis cohort [Black: aOR = 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.96); Hispanic aOR = 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96)]. In the limb fracture cohort, Black non-Hispanic children and Hispanic children were more likely to receive any analgesic treatment (non-opioid or opioid) than White non-Hispanic children [Black: aOR = 1.63 (95% CI, 1.33-2.01); Hispanic aOR = 1.43 (95% CI, 1.19-1.72)]. Conclusion: Racial and ethnic disparities exist in the pain management of two different painful conditions, which suggests true inequities in health care delivery. To provide equitable analgesic care, emergency departments should monitor variation in analgesic management and develop appropriate universal interventions.