Daily Time-Use Patterns and Quality of Life in Parents: Protocol for a Pilot Quasi-Experimental, Nonrandomized Controlled Trial Using Ecological Momentary Assessment
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 · Cited by 7,511 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It is also negatively associated with, for example, neuroticism [31,32] or difficulties in emotion regulation [33].”
BackgroundEffects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies
Keng, S.-L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006 · Cited by 2,687 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Hence, it is likely that regular reflection of and recording of the current activity and associated affect as a momentary and passing state depicts a form of mindfulness exercise [34].”
BackgroundMoltu, C., Stefansen, J., Svisdahl, M., & Veseth, M. (2012) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.656792 · Cited by 1,247 · see citing works
Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT
Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2017) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.011 · Cited by 919 · see citing works
Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis
Giluk, T. L. (2009) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.026 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Mindfulness skills and interpersonal behaviour
Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.018 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Biddle, S. J. H., Whitehead, S. H., O’Donovan, T. M., & Nevill, M. E. (2005) · Journal of Physical Activity and Health · doi:10.1123/jpah.2.4.423 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Kliem, S., Mößle, T., Rehbein, F., Hellmann, D. F., Zenger, M., & Brähler, E. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.003 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Runyan, J. D., Steenbergh, T. A., Bainbridge, C., Daugherty, D. A., Oke, L., & Fry, B. N. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071325 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
The German Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G): Development and Validation Study
Messner, E.-M., Terhorst, Y., Barke, A., Baumeister, H., Stoyanov, S., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D., Pryss, R., Sander, L., & Probst, T. (2020) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/14479 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Blanke, E. S., Riediger, M., & Brose, A. (2018) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000323 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Altweck, L., Schmidt, S., & Tomczyk, S.
- Affiliations
- Universität Greifswald (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Altweck, Laura
- Venue
- JMIR Research Protocols
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2024-05-31
- Volume
- 13
- Pages
- e54728
- ISSN
- 1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11179039
- OpenAlex
- W4399206838
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 2.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Universität Greifswald
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
- Keywords
- daily time use, parents, quality of life, well-being, stress, gender role beliefs, work-family conflict, unpaid work, mindfulness, feasibility, ecological momentary assessment, social support, mediating and moderating effects, online surveys, qualitative interviews, household composition, paid work hours
- MeSH terms
- Ecological Momentary Assessment, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Parents, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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