Practitioner and researcher perspectives on the utility of ecological momentary assessment in mental health care: A survey study.
Blended care
Clinical implementation
Ecological momentary assessment
Experience sampling
Personalized psychiatry
e-Health
Journal
Internet interventions
ISSN: 2214-7829
Titre abrégé: Internet Interv
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101631612
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
25
02
2022
revised:
05
07
2022
accepted:
23
09
2022
entrez:
4
10
2022
pubmed:
5
10
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a scientific self-monitoring method to capture individuals' daily life experiences. Early on, EMA has been suggested to have the potential to improve mental health care. However, it remains unclear if and how EMA should be implemented. This requires an in-depth investigation of how practitioners and researchers view the implementation of EMA. Explore the perspectives of mental health practitioners and EMA researchers on the utility of EMA for mental health care. Practitioners ( Practitioners and researchers considered EMA to be a useful clinical tool for diverse stages of care. They indicated EMA to be most useful for gaining insight into the context specificity of symptoms (55.0 %), whereas receiving alerts when symptoms increase was rated the least useful (11.3 %, alerts is in 95 % of bootstrap iterations between rank 8 and 10). Compared to treatment-as-usual, EMA was considered easier to use ( This survey study demonstrated that practitioners and researchers expect EMA to have added value for mental health care. Concrete recommendations for implementation of EMA are formulated. This may inform the development of specific clinical applications and user-friendly EMA software.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a scientific self-monitoring method to capture individuals' daily life experiences. Early on, EMA has been suggested to have the potential to improve mental health care. However, it remains unclear if and how EMA should be implemented. This requires an in-depth investigation of how practitioners and researchers view the implementation of EMA.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
Explore the perspectives of mental health practitioners and EMA researchers on the utility of EMA for mental health care.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Practitioners (
Results
UNASSIGNED
Practitioners and researchers considered EMA to be a useful clinical tool for diverse stages of care. They indicated EMA to be most useful for gaining insight into the context specificity of symptoms (55.0 %), whereas receiving alerts when symptoms increase was rated the least useful (11.3 %, alerts is in 95 % of bootstrap iterations between rank 8 and 10). Compared to treatment-as-usual, EMA was considered easier to use (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
This survey study demonstrated that practitioners and researchers expect EMA to have added value for mental health care. Concrete recommendations for implementation of EMA are formulated. This may inform the development of specific clinical applications and user-friendly EMA software.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36193339
doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2022.100575
pii: S2214-7829(22)00082-3
pmc: PMC9526140
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100575Informations de copyright
© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 12;12(10):e0186294
pubmed: 29023568
Eur Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;41:115-121
pubmed: 28135594
Psychol Med. 2015 Mar;45(4):747-57
pubmed: 25191855
Br J Health Psychol. 2010 Feb;15(Pt 1):1-39
pubmed: 19646331
Psychol Med. 2020 Dec 14;:1-10
pubmed: 33315003
Front Psychol. 2019 Dec 11;10:2782
pubmed: 31920830
Health Psychol. 2016 May;35(5):433-41
pubmed: 26690641
Int J Bipolar Disord. 2020 Dec 1;8(1):38
pubmed: 33258015
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 19;11(9):e0162811
pubmed: 27643994
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 May;23(3):477-84
pubmed: 26911822
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2021 Jul;48(4):597-607
pubmed: 33047277
Internet Interv. 2021 Jul 19;26:100436
pubmed: 34430220
Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225-30
pubmed: 14568747
JMIR Ment Health. 2022 Aug 9;9(8):e36430
pubmed: 35943762
J Pers Oriented Res. 2017 Nov 01;3(1):1-10
pubmed: 33569120
J Psychosom Res. 2020 Aug 5;137:110211
pubmed: 32862062
Clin Psychol Sci. 2018 May;6(3):416-427
pubmed: 29805918
BMC Med. 2020 Nov 23;18(1):345
pubmed: 33222699
Psychother Res. 2021 Apr;31(4):520-534
pubmed: 32838671
Behav Ther. 2017 Jan;48(1):76-96
pubmed: 28077223
BMC Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 23;13:34
pubmed: 23343329
Eur Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;30(8):900-6
pubmed: 26647864
Internet Interv. 2019 Dec 02;19:100299
pubmed: 31890641
BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Sep 3;18(1):276
pubmed: 30176845
Psychother Psychosom. 2019;88(4):249-251
pubmed: 31256155
Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:579-616
pubmed: 12499517
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015 Nov;25(11):1853-64
pubmed: 26336868
Psychiatr Serv. 2019 Nov 1;70(11):983-991
pubmed: 31434558
Psychol Med. 2009 Sep;39(9):1533-47
pubmed: 19215626
World Psychiatry. 2014 Feb;13(1):68-77
pubmed: 24497255
Depress Anxiety. 2017 Jun;34(6):481-493
pubmed: 28544391
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Nov 1;68(11):1172-1181
pubmed: 28669284
BMC Psychiatry. 2021 Mar 10;21(1):143
pubmed: 33691647
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Oct 28;12:719490
pubmed: 34777038