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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.042 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".