Cited by 319Mental Health Research TopicsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMedication Adherence and Compliance

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

Open access
Jones, Andrew, Remmerswaal, Danielle, Verveer, Ilse, Robinson, Eric, Franken, Ingmar H. A., Wen, Cheng K. Fred, Field, Matt·2019·Addiction

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.

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 · 10.1111/add.14503

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [22]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.
  2. [54]Vietchtbauer W. Conducting meta‐analysis in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010; 36: 1– 48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, A., Remmerswaal, D., Verveer, I., Robinson, E., Franken, I. H. A., Wen, C. K. F., & Field, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Jones, Andrew
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-21
Volume
114
Issue
4
Pages
609-619
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2907787119
Cited by
319
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 12
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N016211/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
ecological momentary assessment, substance use
MeSH terms
Ecological Momentary Assessment, Smokers, Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Female, Humans, Male, Research Design, Substance-Related Disorders, Guideline Adherence, Drug Users, 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