W Scott Comulada1, Dallas Swendeman1, Maryann K Koussa1, Deborah Mindry2, Melissa Medich3, Deborah Estrin4, Neil Mercer5, Nithya Ramanathan6. 1. 1Global Center for Children and Families,Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences,University of California,Los Angeles,10920 Wilshire Blvd,Suite 350,Los Angeles,CA 90024,USA. 2. 2Center for Social Medicine and Humanities,Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences,University of California,Los Angeles,Los Angeles,CA,USA. 3. 3Department of Family Medicine,University of California,Los Angeles,Los Angeles,CA,USA. 4. 4Computer Science Department,Cornell Tech,New York,NY,USA. 5. 5Department of Surgery,University of California,San Francisco,San Francisco,CA,USA. 6. 6Nexleaf Analytics,Los Angeles,CA,USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mobile phones can replace traditional self-monitoring tools through cell phone-based ecological momentary assessment (CEMA) of lifestyle behaviours and camera phone-based images of meals, i.e. photographic food records (PFR). Adherence to mobile self-monitoring needs to be evaluated in real-world treatment settings. Towards this goal, we examine CEMA and PFR adherence to the use of a mobile app designed to help mothers self-monitor lifestyle behaviours and stress. Design/Setting In 2012, forty-two mothers recorded CEMA of diet quality, exercise, sleep, stress and mood four times daily and PFR during meals over 6 months in Los Angeles, California, USA. SUBJECTS: A purposive sample of mothers from mixed ethnicities. RESULTS: Adherence to recording CEMA at least once daily was higher compared with recording PFR at least once daily over the study period (74 v. 11 %); adherence to both types of reports decreased over time. Participants who recorded PFR for more than a day (n 31) were more likely to be obese v. normal- to overweight and to have higher blood pressure, on average (all P<0·05). Based on random-effects regression, CEMA and PFR adherence was highest during weekdays (both P<0·01). Additionally, PFR adherence was associated with older age (P=0·04). CEMA adherence was highest in the morning (P<0·01). PFR recordings occurred throughout the day. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in population and temporal characteristics should be considered for mobile assessment schedules. Neither CEMA nor PFR alone is ideal over extended periods.
OBJECTIVE: Mobile phones can replace traditional self-monitoring tools through cell phone-based ecological momentary assessment (CEMA) of lifestyle behaviours and camera phone-based images of meals, i.e. photographic food records (PFR). Adherence to mobile self-monitoring needs to be evaluated in real-world treatment settings. Towards this goal, we examine CEMA and PFR adherence to the use of a mobile app designed to help mothers self-monitor lifestyle behaviours and stress. Design/Setting In 2012, forty-two mothers recorded CEMA of diet quality, exercise, sleep, stress and mood four times daily and PFR during meals over 6 months in Los Angeles, California, USA. SUBJECTS: A purposive sample of mothers from mixed ethnicities. RESULTS: Adherence to recording CEMA at least once daily was higher compared with recording PFR at least once daily over the study period (74 v. 11 %); adherence to both types of reports decreased over time. Participants who recorded PFR for more than a day (n 31) were more likely to be obese v. normal- to overweight and to have higher blood pressure, on average (all P<0·05). Based on random-effects regression, CEMA and PFR adherence was highest during weekdays (both P<0·01). Additionally, PFR adherence was associated with older age (P=0·04). CEMA adherence was highest in the morning (P<0·01). PFR recordings occurred throughout the day. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in population and temporal characteristics should be considered for mobile assessment schedules. Neither CEMA nor PFR alone is ideal over extended periods.
Entities:
Keywords:
Camera phone image; Dietary intake; Ecological momentary assessment; Photographic food record
Authors: Elina Mattila; Juha Pärkkä; Marion Hermersdorf; Jussi Kaasinen; Janne Vainio; Kai Samposalo; Juho Merilahti; Juha Kolari; Minna Kulju; Raimo Lappalainen; Ilkka Korhonen Journal: IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed Date: 2008-07
Authors: T W McDade; J F Stallings; A Angold; E J Costello; M Burleson; J T Cacioppo; R Glaser; C M Worthman Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2000 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Eirik Årsand; Dag Helge Frøisland; Stein Olav Skrøvseth; Taridzo Chomutare; Naoe Tatara; Gunnar Hartvigsen; James T Tufano Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-09-01
Authors: J A Higgins; A L LaSalle; P Zhaoxing; M Y Kasten; K N Bing; S E Ridzon; T L Witten Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Stephanie L Fitzpatrick; Robert Jeffery; Karen C Johnson; Cathy C Roche; Brent Van Dorsten; Molly Gee; Ruby Ann Johnson; Jeanne Charleston; Kathy Dotson; Michael P Walkup; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Frederick L Brancati Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Agata Chmurzynska; Monika A Mlodzik-Czyzewska; Anna M Malinowska; Jolanta Czarnocinska; Douglas Wiebe Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 5.717