Kathryn E Smith1,2, Adrienne Juarascio3. 1. Center for Bio-behavioral Research, Sanford Research, Fargo, ND, USA. kathryn.smith3@sanfordhealth.org. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Fargo, ND, USA. kathryn.smith3@sanfordhealth.org. 3. Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ambulatory assessment methods, including ecological momentary assessment (EMA), have often been used in eating disorders (EDs) to assess the type, frequency, and temporal sequencing of ED symptoms occurring in naturalistic environments. Relatedly, growing research in EDs has explored the utility of ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) to target ED symptoms. The aims of the present review were to (1) synthesize recent literature pertaining to ambulatory assessment/EMA and EMI in EDs, and (2) identify relevant limitations and future directions in these domains. RECENT FINDINGS: With respect to ambulatory assessment and EMA, there has been substantial growth in the expansion of constructs assessed with EMA, the exploration of state- vs. trait-level processes, integration of objective and passive assessment approaches, and consideration of methodological issues. The EMI literature in EDs also continues to grow, though most of the recent research focuses on mobile health (mHealth) technologies with relatively minimal EMI components that adapt to momentary contextual information. Despite these encouraging advances, there remain several promising areas of ambulatory assessment research and clinical applications in EDs going forward. These include integration of passive data collection, use of EMA in treatment evaluation and design, evaluation of dynamic system processes, inclusion of diverse samples, and development and evaluation of adaptive, tailored EMIs such as just-in-time adaptive interventions. While much remains to be learned in each of these domains, the continual growth in mobile technology has potential to facilitate and refine our understanding of the nature of ED psychopathology and ultimately improve intervention approaches.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ambulatory assessment methods, including ecological momentary assessment (EMA), have often been used in eating disorders (EDs) to assess the type, frequency, and temporal sequencing of ED symptoms occurring in naturalistic environments. Relatedly, growing research in EDs has explored the utility of ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) to target ED symptoms. The aims of the present review were to (1) synthesize recent literature pertaining to ambulatory assessment/EMA and EMI in EDs, and (2) identify relevant limitations and future directions in these domains. RECENT FINDINGS: With respect to ambulatory assessment and EMA, there has been substantial growth in the expansion of constructs assessed with EMA, the exploration of state- vs. trait-level processes, integration of objective and passive assessment approaches, and consideration of methodological issues. The EMI literature in EDs also continues to grow, though most of the recent research focuses on mobile health (mHealth) technologies with relatively minimal EMI components that adapt to momentary contextual information. Despite these encouraging advances, there remain several promising areas of ambulatory assessment research and clinical applications in EDs going forward. These include integration of passive data collection, use of EMA in treatment evaluation and design, evaluation of dynamic system processes, inclusion of diverse samples, and development and evaluation of adaptive, tailored EMIs such as just-in-time adaptive interventions. While much remains to be learned in each of these domains, the continual growth in mobile technology has potential to facilitate and refine our understanding of the nature of ED psychopathology and ultimately improve intervention approaches.
Authors: Elizabeth O Lillie; Bradley Patay; Joel Diamant; Brian Issell; Eric J Topol; Nicholas J Schork Journal: Per Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Saee Hamine; Emily Gerth-Guyette; Dunia Faulx; Beverly B Green; Amy Sarah Ginsburg Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Brooke Marie Bell; Ridwan Alam; Abu Sayeed Mondol; Meiyi Ma; Ifat Afrin Emi; Sarah Masud Preum; Kayla de la Haye; John A Stankovic; John Lach; Donna Spruijt-Metz Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 4.947
Authors: Jenni Leppanen; Dalia Brown; Hannah McLinden; Steven Williams; Kate Tchanturia Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Tristan J Philippe; Naureen Sikder; Anna Jackson; Maya E Koblanski; Eric Liow; Andreas Pilarinos; Krisztina Vasarhelyi Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-05-12