Understanding health behaviours in context: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies of five key health behaviours.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2022.2112258
Olga Perski, Jan Keller, Dimitra Kale, Bernard Yeboah-Asiamah Asare, Verena Schneider, Daniel Powell, Felix Naughton, Gill Ten Hoor, Peter Verboon, Dominika Kwasnicka
{"title":"Understanding health behaviours in context: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies of five key health behaviours.","authors":"Olga Perski,&nbsp;Jan Keller,&nbsp;Dimitra Kale,&nbsp;Bernard Yeboah-Asiamah Asare,&nbsp;Verena Schneider,&nbsp;Daniel Powell,&nbsp;Felix Naughton,&nbsp;Gill Ten Hoor,&nbsp;Peter Verboon,&nbsp;Dominika Kwasnicka","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2022.2112258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) involves repeated, real-time sampling of health behaviours in context. We present the state-of-knowledge in EMA research focused on five key health behaviours (physical activity and sedentary behaviour, dietary behaviour, alcohol consumption, tobacco smoking, sexual health), summarising theoretical (e.g., psychological and contextual predictors) and methodological aspects (e.g., study characteristics, EMA adherence). We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science until February 2021. We included studies focused on any of the aforementioned health behaviours in adult, non-clinical populations that assessed ≥1 psychological/contextual predictor and reported a predictor-behaviour association. A narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses of EMA adherence were conducted. We included 633 studies. The median study duration was 14 days. The most frequently assessed predictors were 'negative feeling states' (21%) and 'motivation and goals' (16.5%). The pooled percentage of EMA adherence was high at 81.4% (95% CI = 80.0%, 82.8%, <i>k </i>= 348) and did not differ by target behaviour but was somewhat higher in student (vs. general population) samples, when EMAs were delivered via mobile phones/smartphones (vs. handheld devices), and when event contingent (vs. fixed) sampling was used. This review showcases how the EMA method has been applied to improve understanding and prediction of health behaviours in context.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9704370/pdf/","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2022.2112258","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) involves repeated, real-time sampling of health behaviours in context. We present the state-of-knowledge in EMA research focused on five key health behaviours (physical activity and sedentary behaviour, dietary behaviour, alcohol consumption, tobacco smoking, sexual health), summarising theoretical (e.g., psychological and contextual predictors) and methodological aspects (e.g., study characteristics, EMA adherence). We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science until February 2021. We included studies focused on any of the aforementioned health behaviours in adult, non-clinical populations that assessed ≥1 psychological/contextual predictor and reported a predictor-behaviour association. A narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses of EMA adherence were conducted. We included 633 studies. The median study duration was 14 days. The most frequently assessed predictors were 'negative feeling states' (21%) and 'motivation and goals' (16.5%). The pooled percentage of EMA adherence was high at 81.4% (95% CI = 80.0%, 82.8%, k = 348) and did not differ by target behaviour but was somewhat higher in student (vs. general population) samples, when EMAs were delivered via mobile phones/smartphones (vs. handheld devices), and when event contingent (vs. fixed) sampling was used. This review showcases how the EMA method has been applied to improve understanding and prediction of health behaviours in context.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解环境中的健康行为:对五种关键健康行为的生态瞬时评估研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
生态瞬时评估(EMA)涉及对环境中的健康行为进行重复的实时采样。我们介绍了EMA研究的现状,重点关注五种关键健康行为(身体活动和久坐行为、饮食行为、饮酒、吸烟、性健康),总结了理论(如心理和背景预测因素)和方法方面(如研究特征、EMA依从性)。我们检索了Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO和Web of Science,直到2021年2月。我们纳入了针对成人、非临床人群中任何上述健康行为的研究,这些研究评估了≥1个心理/环境预测因子,并报告了预测因子-行为关联。对EMA依从性进行叙事综合和随机效应荟萃分析。我们纳入了633项研究。中位研究持续时间为14天。最常被评估的预测因素是“消极情绪状态”(21%)和“动机和目标”(16.5%)。EMA依从性的总百分比高达81.4% (95% CI = 80.0%, 82.8%, k = 348),并没有因目标行为而异,但在学生(与一般人群)样本中,当通过移动电话/智能手机(与手持设备相比)提供EMA时,以及当使用事件偶然抽样(与固定抽样相比)时,EMA依从性的总百分比略高。这篇综述展示了EMA方法是如何应用于提高对环境中健康行为的理解和预测的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
期刊最新文献
Analytical decisions pose moral questions. Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Protection motivation theory and health behaviour: conceptual review, discussion of limitations, and recommendations for best practice and future research. Inhibitory control training to reduce appetitive behaviour: a meta-analytic investigation of effectiveness, potential moderators, and underlying mechanisms of change.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1