Philip D Harvey1,2,3,4,5,6, Michelle L Miller1,2,3,4,5,6, Raeanne C Moore1,2,3,4,5,6, Colin A Depp1,2,3,4,5,6, Emma M Parrish1,2,3,4,5,6, Amy E Pinkham1,2,3,4,5,6. 1. Dr. Harvey is with the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida, and Research Service at Bruce W. Carter VA Medical Center in Miami, Florida. 2. Ms. Miller is with the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. 3. Dr. Moore is with the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California in La Jolla, California. 4. Dr. Depp is with the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California in La Jolla, California, and Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System in La Jolla, California. 5. Ms. Parrish is with the Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology at San Diego State University /University of California, San Diego. 6. Dr. Pinkham is with the University of Texas at Dallas in Richardson, Texas, and the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
Objective: The development and deployment of technology-based assessments of clinical symptoms are increasing. This study used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to examine clinical symptoms and relates these sampling results to structured clinical ratings. Methods: Three times a day for 30 days, participants with bipolar disorder (n=71; BPI) or schizophrenia (n=102; SCZ) completed surveys assessing five psychosis-related and five mood symptoms, in addition to reporting their location and who they were with at the time of survey completion. Participants also completed Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) interviews with trained raters. Mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM) analyses examined diagnostic effects and the convergence between clinical ratings and EMA sampling. Results: In total, 12,406 EMA samples were collected, with 80-percent adherence to prompts. EMA-reported psychotic symptoms manifested substantial convergence with equivalent endpoint PANSS items. Patients with SCZ had more severe PANSS and EMA psychotic symptoms. There were no changes in symptom severity scores as a function of the number of previous assessments. Conclusions: EMA surveyed clinical symptoms converged substantially with commonly used clinical rating scales in a large sample, with high adherence. This suggested that remote assessment of clinical symptoms is valid and practical and was not associated with alterations in symptoms as a function of reassessment, with additional benefits of "in the moment" sampling, such as eliminating recall bias and the need for informant reports.
Objective: The development and deployment of technology-based assessments of clinical symptoms are increasing. This study used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to examine clinical symptoms and relates these sampling results to structured clinical ratings. Methods: Three times a day for 30 days, participants with bipolar disorder (n=71; BPI) or schizophrenia (n=102; SCZ) completed surveys assessing five psychosis-related and five mood symptoms, in addition to reporting their location and who they were with at the time of survey completion. Participants also completed Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) interviews with trained raters. Mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM) analyses examined diagnostic effects and the convergence between clinical ratings and EMA sampling. Results: In total, 12,406 EMA samples were collected, with 80-percent adherence to prompts. EMA-reported psychotic symptoms manifested substantial convergence with equivalent endpoint PANSS items. Patients with SCZ had more severe PANSS and EMA psychotic symptoms. There were no changes in symptom severity scores as a function of the number of previous assessments. Conclusions: EMA surveyed clinical symptoms converged substantially with commonly used clinical rating scales in a large sample, with high adherence. This suggested that remote assessment of clinical symptoms is valid and practical and was not associated with alterations in symptoms as a function of reassessment, with additional benefits of "in the moment" sampling, such as eliminating recall bias and the need for informant reports.
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: Anzalee Khan; Lora Liharska; Philip D Harvey; Alexandra Atkins; Daniel Ulshen; Richard S E Keefe Journal: Innov Clin Neurosci Date: 2017-12-01
Authors: Gregory P Strauss; Farnaz Zamani Esfahlani; Eric Granholm; Jason Holden; Katherine Frost Visser; Lisa A Bartolomeo; Hiroki Sayama Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 7.348
Authors: Christoph U Correll; Robert E Davis; Michal Weingart; Jelena Saillard; Cedric O'Gorman; John M Kane; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Carol A Tamminga; Sharon Mates; Kimberly E Vanover Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Ellaheh Gohari; Raeanne C Moore; Colin A Depp; Robert A Ackerman; Amy E Pinkham; Philip D Harvey Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 11.225
Authors: Julia Browne; Philip D Harvey; Robert W Buchanan; Deanna L Kelly; Gregory P Strauss; James M Gold; Jason L Holden; Eric Granholm Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) Date: 2022-02-23