| Literature DB >> 28153816 |
Sabrina L Smiley1, Hoda Elmasry1, Monica Webb Hooper2, Raymond S Niaura1,3,4, Alison B Hamilton5,6, Norweeta G Milburn5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that sexualized text communication ("sexting") is associated with substance use and sexual risk behaviors among young adults, yet little is known about this relationship among young adult African American gay and bisexual men, a population disproportionately impacted by HIV in the United States. Rapid advances in mobile phone technology indicate a clear need for research using mobile health (mHealth) methods such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to serve as a viable counterpart to retrospective evaluation methods by using real-time data collection to assess sexting and substance use among this population.Entities:
Keywords: African American men; alcohol; ecological momentary assessment; gay and bisexual; marijuana; mobile phone; sexting; text messaging; young adult
Year: 2017 PMID: 28153816 PMCID: PMC5314099 DOI: 10.2196/resprot.6520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Res Protoc ISSN: 1929-0748
Figure 1Screenshot of 3 of the 8 ecological momentary assessment (EMA) random prompt text message survey questions.
Participant characteristics.
| Survey compliance | |||||||
| β | |||||||
| African American | 21 (84) | 5.72 | .65 | ||||
| More than 1 race (refb) | 4 (16) | — | — | ||||
| Age, mean (SD) | 23.5 (1.5) | 1.28 | .68 | ||||
| High school or less (ref) | 4 (16) | — | — | ||||
| Some college or more | 21 (84) | 8.33 | .51 | ||||
| Working, paid or unpaid | 21 (84) | 4.11 | .75 | ||||
| Not working (ref) | 4 (16) | — | — | ||||
| Yes | 16 (64) | −14.53 | .12 | ||||
| No (ref) | 9 (36) | — | — | ||||
| Faster | 19 (76) | −18.2 | .08 | ||||
| Slower/same rate (ref) | 6 (24) | — | — | ||||
| Excellent or very good | 17 (68) | 11.66 | .24 | ||||
| Good or fair (ref) | 8 (32) | — | — | ||||
| None (ref) | 12 (48) | — | — | ||||
| Mild, moderate, or severe | 13 (52) | −0.84 | .93 | ||||
| <US $35,000 | 15 (60) | — | — | ||||
| US $35,000+ | 8 (32) | — | — | ||||
| Unsure | 2 (8) | — | — | ||||
| Live comfortably or meet needs with a little left | 13 (52) | −8.11 | .38 | ||||
| Just meet basic needs or don't meet basic needs (ref) | 12 (48) | — | — | ||||
| Pretty well satisfied or more or less satisfied | 16 (64) | −12.46 | .19 | ||||
| Not satisfied at all (ref) | 9 (36) | — | — | ||||
| Multiple times per day | 19 (76) | −1.01 | .93 | ||||
| Daily, weekly, or never (ref) | 6 (24) | — | — | ||||
| Multiple times per day or daily (ref) | 6 (25) | — | — | ||||
| Weekly or monthly | 12 (50) | 4.78 | .67 | ||||
| Never | 6 (25) | 0.81 | .95 | ||||
| Yes | 24 (96) | — | — | ||||
| No (ref) | 1 (4) | — | — | ||||
| Yes | 24 (96) | — | — | ||||
| No (ref) | 1 (4) | — | — | ||||
| Yes | 23 (92) | — | — | ||||
| No (ref) | 2 (8) | — | — | ||||
| Yes | 21 (84) | −8.90 | .48 | ||||
| No (ref) | 4 (16) | — | — | ||||
| Yes | 15 (62.5) | 22.71 | .02 | ||||
| No (ref) | 9 (37.5) | — | — | ||||
| 2-4 times per month (ref) | 13 (52) | — | — | ||||
| 2-3 times per week | 12 (48) | 0.06 | >.99 | ||||
| Every day or some days | 17 (68) | −6.30 | .53 | ||||
| Not at all (ref) | 8 (32) | — | — | ||||
| Yes | 14 (56) | −6.95 | .46 | ||||
| No (ref) | 11 (44) | — | — | ||||
aP value for linear regression; regression analyses were not performed for variables with small cell sizes (n≤2).
bref: referent.
Ecological momentary assessment compliance data.
| Totals | Ranges | |
| Number of participants, n (%) | 25 (100) | |
| Total days of observationa, n | 104 | |
| Average days of observation per person, mean (SD) | 10.64 (3.2) | Range: 0-14, interquartile range: 10-12 |
| Retentionb, n (%) | 18 (72.0) |
aFirst entry 4/17/15, last entry 8/6/15 (when cut off at 2 weeks last day was 7/30/15, so 104 days).
bOne participant lost phone and was unable to complete the study; retention defined as percentage of participants who completed surveys on at least 10 of 14 days.
Ecological momentary assessment compliance data overall and by week (data restricted to weeks 1 and 2 only).
| Overall | Week 1 | Week 2 | ||
| By surveya | 544 (57.3) | 277 (57.2) | 267 (57.4) | |
| Partial surveys | 41 (4.3) | 22 (4.5) | 19 (4.1) | |
| By questionb | 4496 (59.2) | 2290 (59.1) | 2206 (59.3) | |
| Complete | 544 (57.3) | 277 (57.2) | 267 (57.4) | |
| Expired | 364 (38.4) | 185 (38.2) | 179 (38.5) | |
| Abandoned | 41 (4.3) | 22 (4.5) | 19 (4.1) | |
| Time to complete EMAcrandom surveyd, mean (SD) | 6.1 (5.0) | 6.1 (5.2) | 6.0 (4.8) | |
aTotal number of random prompts completed/total number of random prompts possible (14 days × 25 participants × 3 surveys per day); excludes status code “initiating” from denominator.
bTotal number of questions completed/total number of questions possible.
cEMA: ecological momentary assessment.
dNumber of minutes elapsed from initiation of each random survey to synchronization with server; restricted to only complete responses and winsorized anyone who took over 20 minutes at 20 minutes.
Figure 2Time-to-complete survey from first prompt by system to last response by participant on weekdays versus weekends across study days.