Use of Electronic Ecological Momentary Assessment Methodologies in Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Sleep Research in Young Adults: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent technological advances allow for the repeated sampling of real-time data in natural settings using electronic ecological momentary assessment (eEMA). These advances are particularly meaningful for investigating physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep in young adults who are in a critical life stage for the development of healthy lifestyle behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the use of eEMA methodologies in physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research in young adults. METHODS: The PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched through August 2022. Inclusion criteria were use of eEMA; sample of young adults aged 18 to 25 years; at least 1 measurement of physical activity, sedentary behavior, or sleep; English language; and a peer-reviewed report of original research. Study reports were excluded if they were abstracts, protocols, or reviews. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted by independent authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used to identify overarching patterns within the following categories guided by the Checklist for Reporting Ecological Momentary Assessments Studies: study characteristics, outcomes and measures, eEMA procedures, and compliance. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1221 citations with a final sample of 37 reports describing 35 unique studies. Most reports (28/37, 76%) were published in the last 5 years (2017-2022), used observational designs (35/37, 95%), consisted of samples of college students or apprentices (28/35, 80%), and were conducted in the United States (22/37, 60%). The sample sizes ranged from 14 to 1584 young adults. Physical activity was measured more frequently (28/37, 76%) than sleep (16/37, 43%) or sedentary behavior (4/37, 11%). Of the 37 studies, 11 (30%) reports included 2 movement behaviors and no reports included 3 movement behaviors. eEMA was frequently used to measure potential correlates of movement behaviors, such as emotional states or feelings (25/37, 68%), cognitive processes (7/37, 19%), and contextual factors (9/37, 24%). There was wide variability in the implementation and reporting of eEMA procedures, measures, missing data, analysis, and compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The use of eEMA methodologies in physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research in young adults has greatly increased in recent years; however, reports continue to lack standardized reporting of features unique to the eEMA methodology. Additional areas in need of future research include the use of eEMA with more diverse populations and the incorporation of all 3 movement behaviors within a 24-hour period. The findings are intended to assist investigators in the design, implementation, and reporting of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research using eEMA in young adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021279156; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021279156.
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 | 0.035 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".