Compliance with ecological momentary assessment protocols in substance users: a meta-analysis

Andrew Jones, Danielle Remmerswaal, Ilse Verveer, Eric Robinson, Ingmar H A Franken, Cheng K Fred Wen, Matt Field, Andrew Jones, Danielle Remmerswaal, Ilse Verveer, Eric Robinson, Ingmar H A Franken, Cheng K Fred Wen, Matt Field

Abstract

Background and aims: While there are considerable benefits to Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), poor compliance with assessment protocols has been identified as a limitation, particularly in substance users. Our aim was to identify the pooled compliance rate of EMA studies in substance users and examine variables that may influence compliance with EMA protocols, such as the length and frequency of assessments.

Design: A meta-analysis and meta-regression of all possible studies (randomized controlled trials and longitudinal) which incorporated EMA protocols, examining substance use.

Setting: Studies took place from 1998 to 2017, in numerous countries world-wide.

Participants: One hundred and twenty-six studies were identified, contributing a total of 19 431 participants (52.32% male, mean age = 28.86).

Measurements: Compliance data, the proportion of responses to the study protocol, were extracted from each study alongside prompt frequency, total length of assessment period, substance use population and device used to administer EMA prompts.

Findings: The pooled compliance rate across all studies was 75.06% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 72.37%, 77.65%]. There was no evidence that compliance rates were significantly associated with prompt frequency [Q(3) = 7.35, P = 0.061], length of assessment period [Q(2) = 2.40, P = 0.301], substance type [Q(3) = 6.30, P = 0.098] or device administration [Q(4) = 4.28, P = 0.369]. However, dependent samples (69.80%) had lower compliance rates than non-dependent samples [76.02%; Q(1) = 4.13, P = 0.042].

Conclusions: The pooled compliance rate for Ecological Momentary Assessment studies in substance-using populations from 1998 to 2017 was lower than the recommended rate of 80%, and was not associated with frequency or duration of assessments.

Keywords: Addiction; compliance; dependence; ecological momentary assessment; meta-analysis; substance use.

© 2018 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow‐chart of the search procedure and studies included in the analyses. *One article 70 contained two ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of compliance rates across studies in meta‐analyses/regression (solid black vertical line represents pooled compliance rate of 75.06%)

References

    1. Shiffman S., Stone A. A., Hufford M. R. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Psychol 2008; 4: 1–32.
    1. Ellen L. H., Marieke W. No time like the present: discovering the hidden dynamics in intensive longitudinal data. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2017; 26: 10–15.
    1. Burke L. E., Shiffman S., Music E., Styn M. A., Kriska A., Smailagic A. et al Ecological momentary assessment in behavioral research: addressing technological and human participant challenges. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e77.
    1. Ginexi E. M., Riley W., Atienza A. A., Mabry P. L. The promise of intensive longitudinal data capture for behavioral health research. Nicotine Tob Res 2014; 16: S73–S75.
    1. Jones A., Robinson E. The longitudinal associations between perceived descriptive peer norms and eating and drinking behavior: an initial examination in young adults. Front Psychol 2017; 8: 2.
    1. Marhe R., Waters A. J., Van De Wetering B. J. M., Franken I. H. A. Implicit and explicit drug‐related cognitions during detoxification treatment are associated with drug relapse: an ecological momentary assessment study. J Consult Clin Psychol 2013; 81: 1–12.
    1. Gwaltney C. J., Bartolomei R., Colby S. M., Kahler C. W. Ecological momentary assessment of adolescent smoking cessation: a feasibility study. Nicotine Tob Res 2008; 10: 1185–1190.
    1. Shiffman S. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in studies of substance use. Psychol Assess 2009; 21: 486–497.
    1. Jones A., Rose A. K., Cole J., Field M. Effects of alcohol cues on craving and ad libitum alcohol consumption in social drinkers: the role of disinhibition. J Exp Psychopathol 2013; 4: 239–249.
    1. McGrath E., Jones A., Field M. Acute stress increases ad‐libitum alcohol consumption in heavy drinkers, but not through impaired inhibitory control. Psychopharmacology 2016; 233: 1227–1234.
    1. Back S. E., Hartwell K., DeSantis S. M., Saladin M., McRae‐Clark A. L., Price K. L. et al Reactivity to laboratory stress provocation predicts relapse to cocaine. Drug Alcohol Depend; 106: 21–27.
    1. Droungas A., Ehrman R. N., Childress A. R., O'Brien C. P. Effect of smoking cues and cigarette availability on craving and smoking behavior. Addict Behav 1995; 20: 657–673.
    1. Carpenter M. J., Saladin M. E., DeSantis S., Gray K. M., LaRowe S. D., Upadhyaya H. P. Laboratory‐based, cue‐elicited craving and cue reactivity as predictors of naturally occurring smoking behavior. Addict Behav 2009; 34: 536–541.
    1. Monk R., Heim D., Qureshi A., Price A. ‘I have no clue what I drunk last night’ using smartphone technology to compare in‐vivo and retrospective self‐reports of alcohol consumption. PLOS ONE 2015; 10: e0156209.
    1. Dulin P. L., Alvarado C. E., Fitterling J. M., Gonzalez V. M. Comparisons of alcohol consumption by time‐line follow Back vs. smartphone‐based daily interviews. Addict Res Theory 2017; 25: 195–200.
    1. Monk R. L., Qureshi A. W., McNeill A., Erskine‐Shaw M., Heim D. Perfect for a gin and tonic: how context drives consumption within a modified bogus taste test. Alcohol Alcohol 2018; 52: 228–234.
    1. Wall A. M., McKee S. A., Hinson R. E., Goldstein A. Examining alcohol outcome expectancies in laboratory and naturalistic bar settings: a within‐subject experimental analysis. Psychol Addict Behav 2001; 15: 219–226.
    1. Wall A. M., McKee S. A., Hinson R. E. Assessing variation in alcohol outcome expectancies across environmental context: an examination of the situational‐specificity hypothesis. Psychol Addict Behav 2000; 14: 367–375.
    1. Stockwell T., Zhao J., Macdonald S. Who under‐reports their alcohol consumption in telephone surveys and by how much? An application of the ‘yesterday method’ in a national Canadian substance use survey. Addiction 2014; 109: 1657–1666.
    1. Boniface S., Kneale J., Shelton N. Drinking pattern is more strongly associated with under‐reporting of alcohol consumption than socio‐demographic factors: evidence from a mixed‐methods study. BMC Public Health 2014; 14: 1927.
    1. Hoeppner B. B., Stout R. L., Jackson K. M., Barnett N. P. How good is fine‐grained timeline follow‐back data? Comparing 30‐day TLFB and repeated 7‐day TLFB alcohol consumption reports on the person and daily level. Addict Behav 2010; 35: 1138–1143.
    1. Robbins M. L., Kubiak T. Ecological Momentary Assessment in Behavioral Medicine In: Mostofsky DI, editor. The Handbook of Behavioral Medicine, 1st edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 2014, pp. 429–446.
    1. Shiffman S., Stone A. A. Introduction to the special section: ecological momentary assessment in health psychology. Health Psychol 1998; 17: 3–5.
    1. Litt M. D., Cooney N. L., Morse P. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) with treated alcoholics: methodological problems and potential solutions. Health Psychol 1998; 17: 48–52.
    1. Graham J. W. Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol 2009; 60: 549–576.
    1. Stone A. A., Shiffman S. Capturing momentary, self‐report data: a proposal for reporting guidelines. Ann Behav Med 2002; 24: 236–243.
    1. Wray T. B., Merrill J. E., Monti P. M. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to assess situation‐level predictors of alcohol use and alcohol‐related consequences. Alcohol Res 2014; 36: 19–28.
    1. Sokolovsky A. W., Mermelstein R. J., Hedeker D. Factors predicting compliance to ecological momentary assessment among adolescent smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 2014; 16: 351–358.
    1. Yang C., Linas B., Kirk G., Bollinger R., Chang L., Chander G. et al Feasibility and acceptability of smartphone‐based ecological momentary assessment of alcohol use among African American men who have sex with men in Baltimore. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2015; 3: e67.
    1. Battista S. R., Mackinnon S. P., Sherry S. B., Barrett S. P., MacNevin P. D., Stewart S. H. Does alcohol reduce social anxiety in daily life? A 22‐day experience sampling study. J Soc Clin Psychol 2015; 34: 508–528.
    1. Hoeppner B. B., Kahler C. W., Gwaltney C. J. Relationship between momentary affect states and self‐efficacy in adolescent smokers. Health Psychol 2014; 33: 1507–1517.
    1. Johnson E. I., Barrault M., Nadeau L., Swendsen J. Feasibility and validity of computerized ambulatory monitoring in drug‐dependent women. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009; 99: 322–326.
    1. Monk R. L., Heim D. A real‐time examination of context effects on alcohol cognitions. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2014; 38: 2454–2459.
    1. Ansell E. B., Laws H. B., Roche M. J., Sinha R. Effects of marijuana use on impulsivity and hostility in daily life. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015; 148: 136–142.
    1. Schuster R. M., Mermelstein R. J., Hedeker D. Ecological momentary assessment of working memory under conditions of simultaneous marijuana and tobacco use. Addiction 2016; 111: 1466–1476.
    1. Messiah A., Grondin O., Encrenaz G. Factors associated with missing data in an experience sampling investigation of substance use determinants. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011; 114: 153–158.
    1. Turner C. M., Coffin P., Santos D., Huffaker S., Matheson T., Euren J. et al Race/ethnicity, education, and age are associated with engagement in ecological momentary assessment text messaging among substance‐using MSM in San Francisco. J Subst Abuse Treat 2017; 75: 43–48.
    1. Piper M. E., Schlam T. R., Cook J. W., Sheffer M. A., Smith S. S., Loh W. Y. et al Tobacco withdrawal components and their relations with cessation success. Psychopharmacology 2011; 216: 569–578.
    1. Hufford M. R., Shields A. L., Shiffman S., Paty J., Balabanis M. Reactivity to ecological momentary assessment: an example using undergraduate problem drinkers. Psychol Addict Behav 2002; 16: 205–211.
    1. Liao Y., Skelton K., Dunton G., Bruening M. A systematic review of methods and procedures used in ecological momentary assessments of diet and physical activity research in youth: an adapted STROBE checklist for reporting EMA studies (CREMAS). J Med Internet Res 2016; 18: e151.
    1. Wen C. K. F., Schneider S., Stone A. A., Spruijt‐Metz D. Compliance with Mobile ecological momentary assessment protocols in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e132.
    1. Wray T. B., Kahler C. W., Monti P. M. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to study sex events among very high‐risk men who have sex with men (MSM). AIDS Behav 2016; 20: 2231–2242.
    1. Stone A. A., Shiffman S., Schwartz J. E., Broderick J. E., Hufford M. R. Patient non‐compliance with paper diaries. BMJ 2002; 324: 1193–1194.
    1. Van Zundert R. M., Nijhof L. M., Engels R. C. Testing social cognitive theory as a theoretical framework to predict smoking relapse among daily smoking adolescents. Addict Behav 2009; 34: 281–286.
    1. Serre F., Fatseas M., Debrabant R., Alexandre J. M., Auriacombe M., Swendsen J. Ecological momentary assessment in alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and opiate dependence: a comparison of feasibility and validity. Drug Alcohol Depend 2012; 126: 118–123.
    1. Rowan P. J., Cofta‐Woerpel L., Mazas C. A., Vidrine J. I., Reitzel L. R., Cinciripini P. M. et al Evaluating reactivity to ecological momentary assessment during smoking cessation. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2007; 15: 382–389.
    1. Kennedy A. P., Epstein D. H., Phillips K. A., Preston K. L. Sex differences in cocaine/heroin users: drug‐use triggers and craving in daily life. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 132: 29–37.
    1. Dworkin E. R., Kaysen D., Bedard‐Gilligan M., Rhew I. C., Lee C. M. Daily‐level associations between PTSD and cannabis use among young sexual minority women. Addict Behav 2017; 74: 118–121.
    1. Wray J. M., Gray K. M., McClure E. A., Carpenter M. J., Tiffany S. T., Saladin M. E. Gender differences in responses to cues presented in the natural environment of cigarette smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 2015; 17: 438–442.
    1. Huh J., Shin H., Leventhal A. M., Spruijt‐Metz D., Abramova Z., Cerrada C. et al Momentary negative moods and being with friends precede cigarette use among Korean American emerging adults. Nicotine Tob Res 2014; 16: 1248–1254.
    1. Kelley G. A., Kelley K. S. Statistical models for meta‐analysis: a brief tutorial. World J Methodol 2012; 2: 27–32.
    1. Veroniki A. A., Jackson D., Viechtbauer W., Bender R., Bowden J., Knapp G. et al Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis. Res Synth Methods 2016; 7: 55–79.
    1. Lipsey M., Wilson D. Practical Meta‐Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.
    1. Vietchtbauer W. Conducting meta‐analysis in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010; 36: 1–48.
    1. Epstein D. H., Preston K. L. Daily life hour by hour, with and without cocaine: an ecological momentary assessment study. Psychopharmacology 2010; 211: 223–232.
    1. Moore T. M., Seavey A., Ritter K., McNulty J. K., Gordon K. C., Stuart G. L. Ecological momentary assessment of the effects of craving and affect on risk for relapse during substance abuse treatment. Psychol Addict Behav 2014; 28: 619–624.
    1. Helzer J. E., Badger G. J., Searles J. S., Rose G. L., Mongeon J. A. Stress and alcohol consumption in heavily drinking men: 2 years of daily data using interactive voice response. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2006; 30: 802–811.
    1. Duval S., Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel‐plot‐based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455–463.
    1. Berkman E. T., Giuliani N. R., Pruitt A. K. Comparison of text messaging and paper‐and‐pencil for ecological momentary assessment of food craving and intake. Appetite 2014; 81: 131–137.
    1. Litt M. D., Cooney N. L., Morse P. Reactivity to alcohol‐related stimuli in the laboratory and in the field: predictors of craving in treated alcoholics. Addiction 2000; 95: 889–900.
    1. Vachon H., Rintala A., Viechtbauer W., Myin‐Germeys I. Data quality and feasibility of the experience sampling method across the spectrum of severe psychiatric disorders: a protocol for a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Syst Rev 2018; 7: 7.
    1. Freedman M. J., Lester K. M., McNamara C., Milby J. B., Schumacher J. E. Cell phones for ecological momentary assessment with cocaine‐addicted homeless patients in treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat 2006; 30: 105–111.
    1. Berkman E. T., Dickenson J., Falk E. B., Lieberman M. D. Using SMS text messaging to assess moderators of smoking reduction: validating a new tool for ecological measurement of health behaviors. Health Psychol 2011; 30: 186–194.
    1. Roberts M. E., Lu B., Browning C. R., Ferketich A. K. Tracking young adults’ attitudes toward tobacco marketing using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). Subst Use Misuse 2017; 52: 1219–1224.
    1. Buckner J. D., Langdon K. J., Jeffries E. R., Zvolensky M. J. Socially anxious smokers experience greater negative affect and withdrawal during self‐quit attempts. Addict Behav 2016; 55: 46–49.
    1. Simons J. S., Wills T. A., Neal D. J. The many faces of affect: a multilevel model of drinking frequency/quantity and alcohol dependence symptoms among young adults. J Abnorm Psychol 2014; 123: 676–694.
    1. Valentine J. C., Pigott T. D., Rothstein H. R. How many studies do you need?: a primer on statistical power for meta‐analysis. J Educ Behav Stat 2010; 35: 215–247.
    1. Otsuki M. Social connectedness and smoking behaviors among Asian American college students: an electronic diary study. Nicotine Tob Res 2009; 11: 418–426.
    1. Jones A., Tiplady B., Houben K., Nederkoorn C., Field M. Do daily fluctuations in inhibitory control predict alcohol consumption? An ecological momentary assessment study. Psychopharmacology 2018; 235: 1487–1496.
    1. O'Grady M. A., Harman J. J., Gleason M. E. J., Wilson K. Managing an attractive impression by using alcohol: evidence from two daily diary studies. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 2012; 34: 76–87.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel