The Impact of Monetary Compensation on Responsiveness to Ecological Momentary Assessments: A Pilot Study of Sexual Minority Men in One Midwestern City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a pilot ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study in preparation for a prospective cohort study of the drivers of syphilis transmission among sexual minority men. Our objectives were: (1) evaluate the effect of monetary compensation (any versus no compensation and amount paid per survey) on participant responsiveness, and (2) evaluate acceptability and feasibility of the EMA smartphone app to capture sexual and other behaviors in the last 24 hours. METHODS: We enrolled 40 men in the 4-week pilot and assigned them to 1 of 2 groups (higher vs lower compensation). Participants completed daily surveys by responding to push notifications or self-initiating in the app. Participants received $5, $3, or $0 per survey depending on compensation group, survey type, and study week. We evaluated response rates overall, by compensation group, and over time, and described responses to a follow-up survey assessing acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: The overall median completion rate was 60.7%. The higher compensation group had higher completion rates for self-initiated surveys, which only they were paid for (median 75% vs 43%, P < 0.001). For study-initiated surveys, which both groups were paid for (but the higher compensation group slightly more), the lower compensation group had somewhat higher completion rates (median 94% vs 75%; P = 0.13). Response rates among both groups decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Responsiveness to daily EMA surveys was higher when participants received compensation. The amount received per survey appeared to be less important. Ecological momentary assessment may be a resource-effective supplement to traditional data collection methodologies in sexual health research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".