Alex T Ramsey1, Julie Loebach Wetherell2, Colin Depp2, David Dixon1, Eric Lenze1. 1. Washington University in St. Louis, School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid, St. Louis, MO 63110. 2. VA San Diego Healthcare System, 3350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, CA 92161; University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has several advantages in clinical research yet little is known about the feasibility of collecting EMA data with mobile technologies in older adults, particularly those with emotional or cognitive difficulties. The aim of this feasibility study was to assess perceived acceptability, adherence rates, and reasons for non-adherence to smartphone-based EMA. METHOD: At two sites, participants (n=103) aged 65 years or older with a DSM-IV-defined anxiety or depressive disorder and cognitive concerns responded three times daily to smartphone-based EMA questions assessing clinical outcomes for two 10-day periods. Quantitative and qualitative measures assessed acceptability, adherence, and reasons for non-adherence following both 10-day EMA periods. RESULTS: Participants were moderately satisfied with and comfortable using smartphone-based EMA. Overall, 76% of participants completed surveys on ≥10 of the 20 assessment days, and 70% of participants completed at least 30% of the total surveys. Reasons for non-adherence included technical (malfunction), logistical (competing demands), physiological (hearing difficulties), and cognitive (forgetting) issues. DISCUSSION: Smartphone-based EMA is feasible in older adults with cognitive and emotional difficulties. EMA tools should be responsive to the needs and preferences of participants to ensure adequate acceptability and adherence in this population. Our findings can inform the design, development, and implementation of mobile technologies in older adults in research and clinical contexts.
OBJECTIVES: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has several advantages in clinical research yet little is known about the feasibility of collecting EMA data with mobile technologies in older adults, particularly those with emotional or cognitive difficulties. The aim of this feasibility study was to assess perceived acceptability, adherence rates, and reasons for non-adherence to smartphone-based EMA. METHOD: At two sites, participants (n=103) aged 65 years or older with a DSM-IV-defined anxiety or depressive disorder and cognitive concerns responded three times daily to smartphone-based EMA questions assessing clinical outcomes for two 10-day periods. Quantitative and qualitative measures assessed acceptability, adherence, and reasons for non-adherence following both 10-day EMA periods. RESULTS:Participants were moderately satisfied with and comfortable using smartphone-based EMA. Overall, 76% of participants completed surveys on ≥10 of the 20 assessment days, and 70% of participants completed at least 30% of the total surveys. Reasons for non-adherence included technical (malfunction), logistical (competing demands), physiological (hearing difficulties), and cognitive (forgetting) issues. DISCUSSION: Smartphone-based EMA is feasible in older adults with cognitive and emotional difficulties. EMA tools should be responsive to the needs and preferences of participants to ensure adequate acceptability and adherence in this population. Our findings can inform the design, development, and implementation of mobile technologies in older adults in research and clinical contexts.
Entities:
Keywords:
cognitive dysfunction; digital divide; ecological momentary assessment; information and communication technology; mobile technology; mood disorder; older adults
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Dror Ben-Zeev; Christopher J Brenner; Mark Begale; Jennifer Duffecy; David C Mohr; Kim T Mueser Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Rebecca Erwin Wells; Catherine E Kerr; Jennifer Wolkin; Michelle Dossett; Roger B Davis; Jacquelyn Walsh; Robert B Wall; Jian Kong; Ted Kaptchuk; Daniel Press; Russell S Phillips; Gloria Yeh Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: François A M Jean; Joel D Swendsen; Igor Sibon; Kristoffer Fehér; Mathilde Husky Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2013-04-12 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: David C Mohr; Michelle Nicole Burns; Stephen M Schueller; Gregory Clarke; Michael Klinkman Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Lehana Thabane; Jinhui Ma; Rong Chu; Ji Cheng; Afisi Ismaila; Lorena P Rios; Reid Robson; Marroon Thabane; Lora Giangregorio; Charles H Goldsmith Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Sudha Prathikanti; Renee Rivera; Ashly Cochran; Jose Gabriel Tungol; Nima Fayazmanesh; Eva Weinmann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Li Li; Jia Huang; Jingsong Wu; Cai Jiang; Shanjia Chen; Guanli Xie; Jinxin Ren; Jing Tao; Chetwyn C H Chan; Lidian Chen; Alex W K Wong Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Stefan Junge; Paul Gellert; Julie Lorraine O'Sullivan; Sebastian Möller; Jan-Niklas Voigt-Antons; Adelheid Kuhlmey; Johanna Nordheim Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-01-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jordan M Alpert; Todd Manini; Megan Roberts; Naga S Prabhakar Kota; Tonatiuh V Mendoza; Laurence M Solberg; Parisa Rashidi Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2020-03-03