Feasibility and Acceptability of Ecological Momentary Assessment With Young Adults Who Are Currently or Were Formerly Homeless: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been used with young people experiencing homelessness to gather information on contexts associated with homelessness and risk behavior in real time and has proven feasible in this population. However, the extent to which EMA may affect the attitudes or behaviors of young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless and are residing in supportive housing has not been well investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the feedback regarding EMA study participation from young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless and examine the reactivity to EMA participation and compliance. METHODS: This mixed methods study used cross-sectional data collected before and after EMA, intensive longitudinal data from a 7-day EMA prompting period, and focus groups of young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless in Los Angeles, California, between 2017 and 2019. RESULTS: Qualitative data confirmed the quantitative findings. Differences in the experience of EMA between young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless were found to be related to stress or anxiety, interference with daily life, difficulty charging, behavior change, and honesty in responses. Anxiety and depression symptomatology decreased from before to after EMA; however, compliance was not significantly associated with this decrease. CONCLUSIONS: The results point to special considerations when administering EMA to young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless. EMA appears to be slightly more burdensome for young adults who are currently homeless than for those residing in supportive housing, which are nuances to consider in the study design. The lack of a relationship between study compliance and symptomatology suggests low levels of reactivity.
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 | 0.041 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".