Ecological Momentary Assessment and mHealth Interventions Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a research design that allows for the measurement of nearly instantaneous experiences within the participant's natural environment. Using EMA can help improve recall bias, ecological validity, and patient engagement while enhancing personalization and the ubiquity of interventions. People that can benefit from the use of EMA are men who have sex with men (MSM). Previous EMA studies have been successful in capturing patterns of depression, anxiety, substance use, and risky sexual behavior. These findings are directly relevant to MSM, who have high rates of each of these psychological and behavioral outcomes. Although there is a driving force behind the growing literature surrounding EMAs among MSM, no synthesizing reviews yet exist. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) synthesize the literature across fields on how EMA methods have been used among MSM, (2) better understand the feasibility and acceptability of EMA interventions among MSM, and (3) inform designs for future research studies on best evidence-based practices for EMA interventions. METHODS: Based on 4 library databases, we conducted a scoping review of EMAs used within interventions among MSM. The eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed studies conducted in the United States and the use of EMA methodology in an intervention for MSM. Modeling after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Compendium of Evidence-Based Interventions as the framework, we applied a typology that used 8 distinct review criteria, for example, sample size, design of the intervention, random assignment, design of the follow-up investigation, rate of retention, and rate of engagement. RESULTS: Our results (k=15, N=952) indicated a range of sample sizes; the smallest sample size was 12, while the largest sample size was 120. Of the 15 studies, 7 (47%) focused on outcomes related to substance use or outcomes related to psychological experiences. Of the 15 studies, 5 (33%) implemented an EMA intervention across 30 days. Of the 15 studies, 2 studies (13%) used random assignment, and 2 studies (13%) had quasi-experimental designs. Of the 15 studies, 10 studies (67%) reported acceptable retention rates greater than 70%. The outcomes that had event-contingent prompts (ie, prompts after engaging in substance use) were not as effective in engaging participants, with overall engagement rates as low as 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic scoping review indicates strong evidence that the EMA methodology is both feasible and acceptable at high rates among MSM, especially, when examining psychological and behavioral outcomes such as negative or positive affect, risky sexual behavior, or substance use. Further research on optimal designs of EMA interventions for MSM is warranted.