Predicting Participant Compliance With Fitness Tracker Wearing and Ecological Momentary Assessment Protocols in Information Workers: Observational Study.
adherence
compliance
ecological momentary assessment
mobile phone
mobile sensing
research design
smartphones
wearables
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 11 2021
12 11 2021
Historique:
received:
30
11
2020
accepted:
24
09
2021
revised:
23
04
2021
entrez:
12
11
2021
pubmed:
13
11
2021
medline:
2
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Studies that use ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) or wearable sensors to track numerous attributes, such as physical activity, sleep, and heart rate, can benefit from reductions in missing data. Maximizing compliance is one method of reducing missing data to increase the return on the heavy investment of time and money into large-scale studies. This paper aims to identify the extent to which compliance can be prospectively predicted from individual attributes and initial compliance. We instrumented 757 information workers with fitness trackers for 1 year and conducted EMAs in the first 56 days of study participation as part of an observational study. Their compliance with the EMA and fitness tracker wearing protocols was analyzed. Overall, 31 individual characteristics (eg, demographics and personalities) and behavioral variables (eg, early compliance and study portal use) were considered, and 14 variables were selected to create beta regression models for predicting compliance with EMAs 56 days out and wearable compliance 1 year out. We surveyed study participation and correlated the results with compliance. Our modeling indicates that 16% and 25% of the variance in EMA compliance and wearable compliance, respectively, could be explained through a survey of demographics and personality in a held-out sample. The likelihood of higher EMA and wearable compliance was associated with being older (EMA: odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03; wearable: OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04), speaking English as a first language (EMA: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05-1.80; wearable: OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.05-1.85), having had a wearable before joining the study (EMA: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.51; wearable: OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.23-1.83), and exhibiting conscientiousness (EMA: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.51; wearable: OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.58). Compliance was negatively associated with exhibiting extraversion (EMA: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.85; wearable: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.78) and having a supervisory role (EMA: OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.79; wearable: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81). Furthermore, higher wearable compliance was negatively associated with agreeableness (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83) and neuroticism (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.98). Compliance in the second week of the study could help explain more variance; 62% and 66% of the variance in EMA compliance and wearable compliance, respectively, was explained. Finally, compliance correlated with participants' self-reflection on the ease of participation, usefulness of our compliance portal, timely resolution of issues, and compensation adequacy, suggesting that these are avenues for improving compliance. We recommend conducting an initial 2-week pilot to measure trait-like compliance and identify participants at risk of long-term noncompliance, performing oversampling based on participants' individual characteristics to avoid introducing bias in the sample when excluding data based on noncompliance, using an issue tracking portal, and providing special care in troubleshooting to help participants maintain compliance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Studies that use ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) or wearable sensors to track numerous attributes, such as physical activity, sleep, and heart rate, can benefit from reductions in missing data. Maximizing compliance is one method of reducing missing data to increase the return on the heavy investment of time and money into large-scale studies.
OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to identify the extent to which compliance can be prospectively predicted from individual attributes and initial compliance.
METHODS
We instrumented 757 information workers with fitness trackers for 1 year and conducted EMAs in the first 56 days of study participation as part of an observational study. Their compliance with the EMA and fitness tracker wearing protocols was analyzed. Overall, 31 individual characteristics (eg, demographics and personalities) and behavioral variables (eg, early compliance and study portal use) were considered, and 14 variables were selected to create beta regression models for predicting compliance with EMAs 56 days out and wearable compliance 1 year out. We surveyed study participation and correlated the results with compliance.
RESULTS
Our modeling indicates that 16% and 25% of the variance in EMA compliance and wearable compliance, respectively, could be explained through a survey of demographics and personality in a held-out sample. The likelihood of higher EMA and wearable compliance was associated with being older (EMA: odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03; wearable: OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04), speaking English as a first language (EMA: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05-1.80; wearable: OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.05-1.85), having had a wearable before joining the study (EMA: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.51; wearable: OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.23-1.83), and exhibiting conscientiousness (EMA: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.51; wearable: OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.58). Compliance was negatively associated with exhibiting extraversion (EMA: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.85; wearable: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.78) and having a supervisory role (EMA: OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.79; wearable: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81). Furthermore, higher wearable compliance was negatively associated with agreeableness (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83) and neuroticism (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.98). Compliance in the second week of the study could help explain more variance; 62% and 66% of the variance in EMA compliance and wearable compliance, respectively, was explained. Finally, compliance correlated with participants' self-reflection on the ease of participation, usefulness of our compliance portal, timely resolution of issues, and compensation adequacy, suggesting that these are avenues for improving compliance.
CONCLUSIONS
We recommend conducting an initial 2-week pilot to measure trait-like compliance and identify participants at risk of long-term noncompliance, performing oversampling based on participants' individual characteristics to avoid introducing bias in the sample when excluding data based on noncompliance, using an issue tracking portal, and providing special care in troubleshooting to help participants maintain compliance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34766911
pii: v9i11e22218
doi: 10.2196/22218
pmc: PMC8663716
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e22218Informations de copyright
©Gonzalo J Martinez, Stephen M Mattingly, Pablo Robles-Granda, Koustuv Saha, Anusha Sirigiri, Jessica Young, Nitesh Chawla, Munmun De Choudhury, Sidney D'Mello, Gloria Mark, Aaron Striegel. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 12.11.2021.
Références
Psychol Methods. 2006 Mar;11(1):54-71
pubmed: 16594767
Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2018 Dec;2(4):
pubmed: 32318650
Nicotine Tob Res. 2014 May;16 Suppl 2:S88-92
pubmed: 24052500
Psychol Rev. 1999 Jul;106(3):529-50
pubmed: 10467897
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017 Jul;113(1):117-143
pubmed: 27055049
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 20;12(12):e0189161
pubmed: 29261709
J Phys Act Health. 2017 Jul;14(7):513-519
pubmed: 28290744
Public Health Nutr. 2006 Sep;9(6):755-62
pubmed: 16925881
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Apr;47(4):725-34
pubmed: 25137369
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1-32
pubmed: 18509902
Addiction. 1993 Jun;88(6):791-804
pubmed: 8329970
Proc ACM Int Conf Ubiquitous Comput. 2016 Sep;2016:1124-1128
pubmed: 30238088
Gait Posture. 2013 Sep;38(4):912-7
pubmed: 23688408
Psychiatry Res. 1989 May;28(2):193-213
pubmed: 2748771
Aging Ment Health. 2016 Aug;20(8):871-9
pubmed: 26033072
Psychol Assess. 2012 Sep;24(3):713-20
pubmed: 22250597
J Appl Psychol. 2002 Dec;87(6):1055-67
pubmed: 12558213
J Appl Psychol. 2000 Jun;85(3):349-60
pubmed: 10900810
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 20;21(8):e12832
pubmed: 31432781
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Oct 30;5(10):e164
pubmed: 29084709
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 26;19(4):e132
pubmed: 28446418
J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(6):302-9
pubmed: 19720768
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019 Jan 16;74(2):269-273
pubmed: 29579176
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Oct 26;20(10):e10147
pubmed: 30368433
Sci Data. 2020 Oct 16;7(1):354
pubmed: 33067468
BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 07;6(7):e011243
pubmed: 27388359
Digit Biomark. 2018 Apr 13;2(1):47-63
pubmed: 32095756
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Jul;50(7):1508-1517
pubmed: 29474208
Transl Behav Med. 2018 Mar 1;8(2):233-242
pubmed: 29381785
Stress Health. 2013 Oct;29(4):307-16
pubmed: 23086901
Psychol Bull. 1984 Nov;96(3):465-90
pubmed: 6393179
J Appl Psychol. 2007 Jul;92(4):967-77
pubmed: 17638458
Breast J. 2006 Sep-Oct;12(5):446-50
pubmed: 16958964