Cited by 32HIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskMental Health Research TopicsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Feasibility of ecological momentary assessment to study mood and risk behavior among young people who inject drugs

Open access
Mackesy-Amiti, Mary E., Boodram, Basmattee·2018·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

Aims To test the acceptability and feasibility of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of mood and injection risk behavior among young people who inject drugs (PWID), using mobile phones.Methods Participants were 185 PWID age 18-35 recruited from two sites of a large syringe service program in Chicago. After completing a baseline interview, participants used a mobile phone app to respond to momentary surveys on mood, substance use, and injection risk behavior for 15 days. Participants were assigned to receive surveys 4, 5, or 6 times per day.Results Participants were 68% male, 61% non-Hispanic white, 24% Hispanic, and 5% non-Hispanic Black. Out of 185 participants, 8% (n = 15) failed to complete any EMA assessments. Among 170 EMA responders, the mean number of days reporting was 10 (SD 4.7), the mean proportion of assessments completed was 0.43 (SD 0.27), and 76% (n = 130) completed the follow-up interview. In analyses adjusted for age and race/ethnicity, women were more responsive than men to the EMA surveys in days reporting (IRR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.56), and total number of surveys completed (IRR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.18-1.93). Homeless participants responded on fewer days (IRR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.90) and completed fewer surveys (IRR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.91), and were less likely to return for follow-up (p = 0.016). EMA responsiveness was not significantly affected by the number of assigned daily assessments.Conclusions This study demonstrated high acceptability and feasibility of EMA among young PWID, with up to 6 survey prompts per day. However, homelessness significantly hampered successful participation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.03.016

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies that found an effect of gender showed that women were more likely to adopt and engage with interventions.

    “Studies that found an effect of gender showed that women were more likely to adopt and engage with interventions [44,52-68].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Results (§3.3) report that women completed EMA surveys on more days and completed more surveys than men, supporting the engagement portion of the claim. The paper studies participation in research assessments among young people who inject drugs, not adoption of interventions; it does not establish that women were more likely to adopt an intervention. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Housing situation was associated with user engagement: people who were experiencing homelessness responded less to messages sent by a phone intervention compared with individuals with stable housing.

    “and (3) housing situation, with people who were experiencing homelessness responding less to messages sent by a phone intervention compared with individuals with stable housing [55].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mackesy-Amiti, M. E., & Boodram, B.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
187
Pages
227-235
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2802041541
Cited by
32
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (R21DA039010)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
ecological momentary assessment, injection risk behavior, mood, mobile phone surveys, feasibility, acceptability, homelessness, syringe services programs, substance use, follow-up retention, sex differences
MeSH terms
Ecological Momentary Assessment, Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Chicago, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk-Taking, Substance Abuse, Intravenous, Substance-Related Disorders, Cell Phone, Young Adult, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review