Compliance With Mobile Ecological Momentary Assessment of Self-Reported Health-Related Behaviors and Psychological Constructs in Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mobile ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) permits real-time capture of self-reported participant behaviors and perceptual experiences. Reporting of mEMA protocols and compliance has been identified as problematic within systematic reviews of children, youth, and specific clinical populations of adults. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the use of mEMA for self-reported behaviors and psychological constructs, mEMA protocol and compliance reporting, and associations between key components of mEMA protocols and compliance in studies of nonclinical and clinical samples of adults. METHODS: In total, 9 electronic databases were searched (2006-2016) for observational studies reporting compliance to mEMA for health-related data from adults (>18 years) in nonclinical and clinical settings. Screening and data extraction were undertaken by independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Narrative synthesis described participants, mEMA target, protocol, and compliance. Random effects meta-analysis explored factors associated with cohort compliance (monitoring duration, daily prompt frequency or schedule, device type, training, incentives, and burden score). Random effects analysis of variance (P≤.05) assessed differences between nonclinical and clinical data sets. RESULTS: Of the 168 eligible studies, 97/105 (57.7%) reported compliance in unique data sets (nonclinical=64/105 [61%], clinical=41/105 [39%]). The most common self-reported mEMA target was affect (primary target: 31/105, 29.5% data sets; secondary target: 50/105, 47.6% data sets). The median duration of the mEMA protocol was 7 days (nonclinical=7, clinical=12). Most protocols used a single time-based (random or interval) prompt type (69/105, 65.7%); median prompt frequency was 5 per day. The median number of items per prompt was similar for nonclinical (8) and clinical data sets (10). More than half of the data sets reported mEMA training (84/105, 80%) and provision of participant incentives (66/105, 62.9%). Less than half of the data sets reported number of prompts delivered (22/105, 21%), answered (43/105, 41%), criterion for valid mEMA data (37/105, 35.2%), or response latency (38/105, 36.2%). Meta-analysis (nonclinical=41, clinical=27) estimated an overall compliance of 81.9% (95% CI 79.1-84.4), with no significant difference between nonclinical and clinical data sets or estimates before or after data exclusions. Compliance was associated with prompts per day and items per prompt for nonclinical data sets. Although widespread heterogeneity existed across analysis (I2>90%), no compelling relationship was identified between key features of mEMA protocols representing burden and mEMA compliance. CONCLUSIONS: In this 10-year sample of studies using the mEMA of self-reported health-related behaviors and psychological constructs in adult nonclinical and clinical populations, mEMA was applied across contexts and health conditions and to collect a range of health-related data. There was inconsistent reporting of compliance and key features within protocols, which limited the ability to confidently identify components of mEMA schedules likely to have a specific impact on compliance.

Multidimensional breathlessness assessment during cardiopulmonary exercise testing in healthy adults.

PURPOSE: This study explored if healthy adults could discriminate between different breathlessness dimensions when rated immediately one after another (successively) during symptom-limited incremental cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing (CPET) using multiple single-item rating scales. METHODS: Fifteen apparently healthy adults (60% male) aged 22 ± 2 years performed six incremental cycle CPETs separated by ≥ 48 h. During each CPET (at rest, every 2-min and at end exercise), participants rated different breathlessness sensations using the 0-10 modified Borg scale using one of six assessment protocols, randomized for order: (1) 'BREATHLESSALL' = breathlessness sensory intensity (SI), breathlessness unpleasantness (UN), work/effort of breathing (SQW/E), and unsatisfied inspiration (SQUI) assessed; (2) SI and UN assessed; and (3-6) SI, UN, SQW/E, and SQUI each assessed alone. Physiological responses to CPET were also evaluated. RESULTS: Physiological and breathlessness responses to CPET were comparable across the six protocols, with the exception of SI rated lower at the highest submaximal power output (220 ± 56 watts) during the BREATHLESSALL protocol (0-10 Borg units 4.2 ± 1.7) compared to SI + UN (5.2 ± 2.1, p = 0.03) and SI alone (5.1 ± 1.9, p = 0.04) protocols. Ratings of SI and SQW/E were not significantly different when assessed in the same protocol, and were significantly higher than UN and SQUI, which were comparable. CONCLUSION: In healthy younger adults, use of two separate single-item rating scales to assess breathlessness during CPET is feasible and enables the distinct sensory intensity and affective dimensions of exertional breathlessness to be assessed.