STROBE-GEMA: a STROBE extension for reporting of geographically explicit ecological momentary assessment studies
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: While a growing body of research has been demonstrating how exposure to social and built environments relate to various health outcomes, specific pathways generally remain poorly understood. But recent technological advancements have enabled new study designs through continuous monitoring using mobile sensors and repeated questionnaires. Such geographically explicit momentary assessments (GEMA) make it possible to link momentary subjective states, behaviors, and physiological parameters to momentary environmental conditions, and can help uncover the pathways linking place to health. Despite its potential, there is currently no review of GEMA studies detailing how location data is used to measure environmental exposure, and how this in turn is linked to momentary outcomes of interest. Moreover, a lack of standard reporting of such studies hampers comparability and reproducibility. AIMS: The objectives of this research were twofold: 1) conduct a systematic review of GEMA studies that link momentary measurement with environmental data obtained from geolocation data, and 2) develop a STROBE extension guideline for GEMA studies. METHOD: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of a combination of repeated momentary measurements of a health state or behavior with GPS coordinate collection, and use of these location data to derive momentary environmental exposures. To develop the guideline, the variables extracted for the systematic review were compared to elements of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and CREMAS (CRedibility of Evidence from Multiple Analyses of the Same data) checklists, to provide a new guideline for GEMA studies. An international panel of experts participated in a consultation procedure to collectively develop the proposed checklist items. RESULTS AND DEVELOPED TOOLS: A total of 20 original GEMA studies were included in the review. Overall, several key pieces of information regarding the GEMA methods were either missing or reported heterogeneously. Our guideline provides a total of 27 categories (plus 4 subcategories), combining a total of 70 items. The 22 categories and 32 items from the original STROBE guideline have been integrated in our GEMA guideline. Eight categories and 6 items from the CREMAS guideline have been included to our guideline. We created one new category (namely "Consent") and added 32 new items specific to GEMA studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This study offers a systematic review and a STROBE extension guideline for the reporting of GEMA studies. The latter will serve to standardize the reporting of GEMA studies, as well as facilitate the interpretation of results and their generalizability. In short, this work will help researchers and public health professionals to make the most of this method to advance our understanding of how environments influence health.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle