Daily Time-Use Patterns and Quality of Life in Parents: Protocol for a Pilot Quasi-Experimental, Nonrandomized Controlled Trial Using Ecological Momentary Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gender gap in time use and its impact on health and well-being are still prevalent. Women work longer hours than men when considering both paid and unpaid (eg, childcare and chores) work, and this gender disparity is particularly visible among parents. Less is known about factors that could potentially mediate or moderate this relationship (eg, work-family conflict and gender role beliefs). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) allows for the documentation of changes in momentary internal states, such as time use, stress, or mood. It has shown particular validity to measure shorter-term activities (eg, unpaid work) and is thus useful to address gender differences. OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of the daily EMA surveys in a parent sample will be examined. The associations between time use, well-being, and stress will be examined, along with potential moderating and mediating factors such as gender, gender role beliefs, and work-family conflict. Finally, the act of monitoring one's own time use, well-being, and stress will be examined in relation to, for example, the quality of life. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental, nonrandomized controlled trial with 3 data collection methods, namely, online questionnaires, EMA surveys, and qualitative interviews. The intervention group (n=64) will participate in the online questionnaires and EMA surveys, and a subsample of the intervention group (n=6-17) will also be invited to participate in qualitative interviews. Over a period of 1 week, participants in the intervention group will answer daily EMA surveys (4 times per day). In contrast, the control group (n=17) will only participate in the online questionnaires at baseline and after 1 week. The following constructs were surveyed: sociodemographic background (eg, age, gender, and household composition; baseline questionnaire); mediators and moderators (eg, gender role beliefs and work-family conflict; baseline and follow-up questionnaires); well-being, quality of life, and trait mindfulness (baseline and follow-up questionnaires); momentary activity and well-being, as well as state mindfulness (EMA); and feasibility (baseline and follow-up questionnaires as well as interviews). We anticipate that participants will regard the daily EMA as feasible. Particular daily time-use patterns (eg, high paid and unpaid workload) are expected to be related to lower well-being, higher stress, and health-related quality of life. These associations are expected to be moderated and mediated by factors such as gender, gender role beliefs, work-family conflict, and social support. Participants in the intervention group are expected to show higher values of mindfulness, well-being, health-related quality of life, and lower stress. RESULTS: Patient recruitment started in November 2023 and ended in mid April 2024. Data analysis commenced in mid April 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to provide valuable insights into the feasibility of using EMAs and the potential benefits of activity tracking in various aspects of daily life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 8qj3d; https://osf.io/8qj3d. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/54728.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".