Development of a Mobile App for Ecological Momentary Assessment of Circadian Data: Design Considerations and Usability Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Collecting data on daily habits across a population of individuals is challenging. Mobile-based circadian ecological momentary assessment (cEMA) is a powerful frame for observing the impact of daily living on long-term health. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we (1) describe the design, testing, and rationale for specifications of a mobile-based cEMA app to collect timing of eating and sleeping data and (2) compare cEMA and survey data collected as part of a 6-month observational cohort study. The ultimate goal of this paper is to summarize our experience and lessons learned with the Daily24 mobile app and to highlight the pros and cons of this data collection modality. METHODS: Design specifications for the Daily24 app were drafted by the study team based on the research questions and target audience for the cohort study. The associated backend was optimized to provide real-time data to the study team for participant monitoring and engagement. An external 8-member advisory board was consulted throughout the development process, and additional test users recruited as part of a qualitative study provided feedback through in-depth interviews. RESULTS: After ≥4 days of at-home use, 37 qualitative study participants provided feedback on the app. The app generally received positive feedback from test users for being fast and easy to use. Test users identified several bugs and areas where modifications were necessary to in-app text and instructions and also provided feedback on the engagement strategy. Data collected through the mobile app captured more variability in eating windows than data collected through a one-time survey, though at a significant cost. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should consider the potential uses of a mobile app beyond the initial data collection when deciding whether the time and monetary expenditure are advisable for their situation and goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".