A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of reactivity to digital in-the-moment measurement of health behaviour.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2022.2047096
Laura M König, Anila Allmeta, Nora Christlein, Miranda Van Emmenis, Stephen Sutton
{"title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of reactivity to digital in-the-moment measurement of health behaviour.","authors":"Laura M König,&nbsp;Anila Allmeta,&nbsp;Nora Christlein,&nbsp;Miranda Van Emmenis,&nbsp;Stephen Sutton","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2022.2047096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-report measures of health behaviour have several limitations including measurement reactivity, i.e., changes in people's behaviour, cognitions or emotions due to taking part in research. This systematic review investigates whether digital in-the-moment measures induce reactivity to a similar extent and why it occurs. Four databases were searched in December 2020. All observational or experimental studies investigating reactivity to digital in-the-moment measurement of a range of health behaviours were included if they were published in English in 2008 or later. Of the 11,723 records initially screened, 30 publications reporting on 31 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis/ 7 studies in the quantitative synthesis. Eighty-one percent of studies focused on reactivity to the measurement of physical activity indicators; small but meaningful pooled effects were found (Cohen's <i>d</i>s: 0.27-0.30). Only a small number of studies included other behaviours, yielding mixed results. Digital in-the-moment measurement of behaviour thus may be as prone to reactivity as self-reports in questionnaires. Measurement reactivity may be amplified by (1) ease of changing the behaviour (2) awareness of being measured and social desirability, and (3) resolving discrepancies between actual and desired behaviour through self-regulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":"16 4","pages":"551-575"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2022.2047096","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: 10

Abstract

Self-report measures of health behaviour have several limitations including measurement reactivity, i.e., changes in people's behaviour, cognitions or emotions due to taking part in research. This systematic review investigates whether digital in-the-moment measures induce reactivity to a similar extent and why it occurs. Four databases were searched in December 2020. All observational or experimental studies investigating reactivity to digital in-the-moment measurement of a range of health behaviours were included if they were published in English in 2008 or later. Of the 11,723 records initially screened, 30 publications reporting on 31 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis/ 7 studies in the quantitative synthesis. Eighty-one percent of studies focused on reactivity to the measurement of physical activity indicators; small but meaningful pooled effects were found (Cohen's ds: 0.27-0.30). Only a small number of studies included other behaviours, yielding mixed results. Digital in-the-moment measurement of behaviour thus may be as prone to reactivity as self-reports in questionnaires. Measurement reactivity may be amplified by (1) ease of changing the behaviour (2) awareness of being measured and social desirability, and (3) resolving discrepancies between actual and desired behaviour through self-regulation.

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
对健康行为即时数字测量反应性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
健康行为的自我报告措施有一些局限性,包括测量反应性,即由于参加研究而使人们的行为、认知或情绪发生变化。这篇系统综述调查了数字即时测量是否会引起类似程度的反应,以及为什么会发生。2020年12月检索了四个数据库。所有调查对一系列健康行为的数字化即时测量的反应性的观察性或实验性研究,如果它们在2008年或之后以英文发表,都被包括在内。在最初筛选的11723份记录中,30份报告了31项研究的出版物被纳入定性综合,7项研究被纳入定量综合。81%的研究关注的是对身体活动指标测量的反应;发现小但有意义的合并效应(Cohen’s ds: 0.27-0.30)。只有少数研究包括了其他行为,结果好坏参半。因此,对行为的数字化即时测量可能与问卷中的自我报告一样容易产生反应。测量反应性可以通过以下方式被放大:(1)改变行为的便利性;(2)被测量的意识和社会期望;(3)通过自我调节解决实际行为和期望行为之间的差异。
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
The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology and diagnosis in burn survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yoga as an intervention for stress: a meta-analysis. 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.
×
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