Sara E Jones1, Raeanne C Moore2, Amy E Pinkham3,4, Colin A Depp2,5, Eric Granholm2,5, Philip D Harvey1,6. 1. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL. 2. UCSD Health Sciences Center, La Jolla, CA. 3. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX. 4. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas TX. 5. San Diego VA Medical Center La Jolla, CA. 6. Bruce W. Carter VA Medical Center, Miami, FL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) offers a highly valid strategy to assess everyday functioning in people with severe mental illness. Adherence is generally good, but several questions regarding the impact of study length, daily density of sampling, and symptom severity on adherence remain. METHODS: EMA adherence in two separate studies was examined. One sampled participants with schizophrenia (n=106) and healthy controls (n=76) 7 times per day for 7 days and the other sampled participants with schizophrenia (n=104) and participants with bipolar illness (n=76) 3 times per day for 30 days. Participants were asked where they were, who they were with, what they were doing and how they were feeling in both studies. The impact of rates of very early adherence on eventual adherence was investigated across the samples, and adherence rates were examined for associations with mood state and most common location when answering surveys. RESULTS: Median levels of adherence were over 80% across the samples, and the 10th percentile for adherence was approximately 45% of surveys answered. Early adherence predicted study-long adherence quite substantially in every sample. Mood states did not correlate with adherence in the patient samples and being home correlated with adherence in only the bipolar sample. IMPLICATIONS: Adherence was quite high and was not correlated with the length of the study or the density of sampling per study day. There was a tendency for bipolar participants who were more commonly away from home to answer fewer surveys but overall adherence for the bipolar patients was quite high. These data suggest that early nonadherence is a potential predictor of eventual nonadherence and study noncompletion.
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) offers a highly valid strategy to assess everyday functioning in people with severe mental illness. Adherence is generally good, but several questions regarding the impact of study length, daily density of sampling, and symptom severity on adherence remain. METHODS: EMA adherence in two separate studies was examined. One sampled participants with schizophrenia (n=106) and healthy controls (n=76) 7 times per day for 7 days and the other sampled participants with schizophrenia (n=104) and participants with bipolar illness (n=76) 3 times per day for 30 days. Participants were asked where they were, who they were with, what they were doing and how they were feeling in both studies. The impact of rates of very early adherence on eventual adherence was investigated across the samples, and adherence rates were examined for associations with mood state and most common location when answering surveys. RESULTS: Median levels of adherence were over 80% across the samples, and the 10th percentile for adherence was approximately 45% of surveys answered. Early adherence predicted study-long adherence quite substantially in every sample. Mood states did not correlate with adherence in the patient samples and being home correlated with adherence in only the bipolar sample. IMPLICATIONS: Adherence was quite high and was not correlated with the length of the study or the density of sampling per study day. There was a tendency for bipolar participants who were more commonly away from home to answer fewer surveys but overall adherence for the bipolar patients was quite high. These data suggest that early nonadherence is a potential predictor of eventual nonadherence and study noncompletion.
Authors: Mathilde M Husky; Claire Gindre; Carolyn M Mazure; Catherine Brebant; Susan Nolen-Hoeksema; Gerard Sanacora; Joel Swendsen Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Raeanne C Moore; Christopher N Kaufmann; Alexandra S Rooney; David J Moore; Lisa T Eyler; Eric Granholm; Steven Paul Woods; Joel Swendsen; Robert K Heaton; J C Scott; Colin A Depp Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Shelagh A Mulvaney; Russell L Rothman; Mary S Dietrich; Kenneth A Wallston; Elena Grove; Tom A Elasy; Kevin B Johnson Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: D V Sheehan; Y Lecrubier; K H Sheehan; P Amorim; J Janavs; E Weiller; T Hergueta; R Baker; G C Dunbar Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Ian M Raugh; Sydney H James; Cristina M Gonzalez; Hannah C Chapman; Alex S Cohen; Brian Kirkpatrick; Gregory P Strauss Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Desirée Colombo; Javier Fernández-Álvarez; Andrea Patané; Michelle Semonella; Marta Kwiatkowska; Azucena García-Palacios; Pietro Cipresso; Giuseppe Riva; Cristina Botella Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Shelagh A Mulvaney; Yun-Xian Ho; Cather M Cala; Qingxia Chen; Hui Nian; Barron L Patterson; Kevin B Johnson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: François A M Jean; Igor Sibon; Mathilde Husky; Thierry Couffinhal; Joel Swendsen Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Raeanne C Moore; Emma M Parrish; Ryan Van Patten; Emily Paolillo; Tess F Filip; Jessica Bomyea; Derek Lomas; Elizabeth W Twamley; Lisa T Eyler; Colin A Depp Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Raeanne C Moore; Robert A Ackerman; Madisen T Russell; Laura M Campbell; Colin A Depp; Philip D Harvey; Amy E Pinkham Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-08-05
Authors: Federica Klaus; Elizabeth Peek; Avery Quynh; Ashley N Sutherland; Divya Selvam; Raeanne C Moore; Colin A Depp; Lisa T Eyler Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-08-23