Smartphone-Delivered Ecological Momentary Interventions Based on Ecological Momentary Assessments to Promote Health Behaviors: Systematic Review and Adapted Checklist for Reporting Ecological Momentary Assessment and Intervention Studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Healthy behaviors are crucial for maintaining a person's health and well-being. The effects of health behavior interventions are mediated by individual and contextual factors that vary over time. Recently emerging smartphone-based ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) can use real-time user reports (ecological momentary assessments [EMAs]) to trigger appropriate support when needed in daily life. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to assess the characteristics of smartphone-delivered EMIs using self-reported EMAs in relation to their effects on health behaviors, user engagement, and user perspectives. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in June 2019 and updated the search in March 2020. We included experimental studies that incorporated EMIs based on EMAs delivered through smartphone apps to promote health behaviors in any health domain. Studies were independently screened. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. We performed a narrative synthesis of intervention effects, user perspectives and engagement, and intervention design and characteristics. Quality appraisal was conducted for all included studies. RESULTS: We included 19 papers describing 17 unique studies and comprising 652 participants. Most studies were quasi-experimental (13/17, 76%), had small sample sizes, and great heterogeneity in intervention designs and measurements. EMIs were most popular in the mental health domain (8/17, 47%), followed by substance abuse (3/17, 18%), diet, weight loss, physical activity (4/17, 24%), and smoking (2/17, 12%). Of the 17 studies, the 4 (24%) included randomized controlled trials reported nonstatistically significant effects on health behaviors, and 4 (24%) quasi-experimental studies reported statistically significant pre-post improvements in self-reported primary outcomes, namely depressive (P<.001) and psychotic symptoms (P=.03), drinking frequency (P<.001), and eating patterns (P=.01). EMA was commonly used to capture subjective experiences as well as behaviors, whereas sensors were rarely used. Generally, users perceived EMIs to be helpful. Common suggestions for improvement included enhancing personalization, multimedia and interactive capabilities (eg, voice recording), and lowering the EMA reporting burden. EMI and EMA components were rarely reported and were not described in a standardized manner across studies, hampering progress in this field. A reporting checklist was developed to facilitate the interpretation and comparison of findings and enhance the transparency and replicability of future studies using EMAs and EMIs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of smartphone-delivered EMIs using self-reported EMAs to promote behavior change is an emerging area of research, with few studies evaluating efficacy. Such interventions could present an opportunity to enhance health but need further assessment in larger participant cohorts and well-designed evaluations following reporting checklists. Future research should explore combining self-reported EMAs of subjective experiences with objective data passively collected via sensors to promote personalization while minimizing user burden, as well as explore different EMA data collection methods (eg, chatbots). TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019138739; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=138739.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,116 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,027 | 0,024 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».