长期悲伤研究中的生态瞬间评估:可行性、可接受性和测量反应性。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Death Studies Pub Date : 2024-12-02 DOI:10.1080/07481187.2024.2433109
Emily H Mintz, Emma R Toner, Alexa M Skolnik, Alicia Pan, Madelyn R Frumkin, Amanda W Baker, Naomi M Simon, Donald J Robinaugh
{"title":"长期悲伤研究中的生态瞬间评估:可行性、可接受性和测量反应性。","authors":"Emily H Mintz, Emma R Toner, Alexa M Skolnik, Alicia Pan, Madelyn R Frumkin, Amanda W Baker, Naomi M Simon, Donald J Robinaugh","doi":"10.1080/07481187.2024.2433109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method of data collection that entails prompting individuals to report their experiences (e.g., thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) in real time over the course of their day-to-day lives. By providing rich information about how these experiences unfold over time within an individual, EMA has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of grief. However, there is uncertainty about how bereaved adults will respond to EMA, especially among those with high prolonged grief symptom severity. Accordingly, we evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of an EMA protocol in bereaved adults with low and high prolonged grief severity. Participants completed six 12-item EMA surveys per day on their smartphones for 17 days. Adherence was high (mean survey completion = 90%, median = 96%), and only 6% of participants withdrew. Adherence remained high in those with high prolonged grief symptom severity (mean = 86%; median = 96%). On average, participants reported agreement that survey frequency and length were acceptable. There was no evidence for systematic worsening of symptoms during EMA data collection. Together, these findings suggest that EMA is feasible, acceptable, and safe for bereaved adults, including those with high prolonged grief symptom severity.</p>","PeriodicalId":11041,"journal":{"name":"Death Studies","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecological momentary assessment in prolonged grief research: Feasibility, acceptability, and measurement reactivity.\",\"authors\":\"Emily H Mintz, Emma R Toner, Alexa M Skolnik, Alicia Pan, Madelyn R Frumkin, Amanda W Baker, Naomi M Simon, Donald J Robinaugh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07481187.2024.2433109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method of data collection that entails prompting individuals to report their experiences (e.g., thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) in real time over the course of their day-to-day lives. By providing rich information about how these experiences unfold over time within an individual, EMA has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of grief. However, there is uncertainty about how bereaved adults will respond to EMA, especially among those with high prolonged grief symptom severity. Accordingly, we evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of an EMA protocol in bereaved adults with low and high prolonged grief severity. Participants completed six 12-item EMA surveys per day on their smartphones for 17 days. Adherence was high (mean survey completion = 90%, median = 96%), and only 6% of participants withdrew. Adherence remained high in those with high prolonged grief symptom severity (mean = 86%; median = 96%). On average, participants reported agreement that survey frequency and length were acceptable. There was no evidence for systematic worsening of symptoms during EMA data collection. Together, these findings suggest that EMA is feasible, acceptable, and safe for bereaved adults, including those with high prolonged grief symptom severity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Death Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Death Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2024.2433109\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Death Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2024.2433109","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生态瞬时评估(EMA)是一种数据收集方法,它需要提示个人在日常生活过程中实时报告他们的经历(例如,思想,感觉和行为)。通过提供丰富的信息,了解这些经历是如何随着时间的推移在个人身上展开的,EMA有可能大大提高我们对悲伤的理解。然而,对于失去亲人的成年人如何应对EMA,特别是那些长期悲伤症状严重程度高的成年人,还存在不确定性。因此,我们评估了EMA方案在具有低和高长期悲伤严重程度的丧亲成人中的可行性和可接受性。参与者在17天的时间里,每天在智能手机上完成6项12项的EMA调查。依从性很高(平均调查完成率为90%,中位数为96%),只有6%的参与者退出。在长期悲伤症状严重程度高的患者中,依从性仍然很高(平均= 86%;中位数= 96%)。平均而言,参与者表示同意调查的频率和长度是可以接受的。在EMA数据收集期间,没有证据表明症状系统性恶化。综上所述,这些发现表明,EMA对于失去亲人的成年人是可行的、可接受的和安全的,包括那些长期悲伤症状严重程度高的成年人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Ecological momentary assessment in prolonged grief research: Feasibility, acceptability, and measurement reactivity.

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method of data collection that entails prompting individuals to report their experiences (e.g., thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) in real time over the course of their day-to-day lives. By providing rich information about how these experiences unfold over time within an individual, EMA has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of grief. However, there is uncertainty about how bereaved adults will respond to EMA, especially among those with high prolonged grief symptom severity. Accordingly, we evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of an EMA protocol in bereaved adults with low and high prolonged grief severity. Participants completed six 12-item EMA surveys per day on their smartphones for 17 days. Adherence was high (mean survey completion = 90%, median = 96%), and only 6% of participants withdrew. Adherence remained high in those with high prolonged grief symptom severity (mean = 86%; median = 96%). On average, participants reported agreement that survey frequency and length were acceptable. There was no evidence for systematic worsening of symptoms during EMA data collection. Together, these findings suggest that EMA is feasible, acceptable, and safe for bereaved adults, including those with high prolonged grief symptom severity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Death Studies
Death Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
7.90%
发文量
94
期刊介绍: Now published ten times each year, this acclaimed journal provides refereed papers on significant research, scholarship, and practical approaches in the fast growing areas of bereavement and loss, grief therapy, death attitudes, suicide, and death education. It provides an international interdisciplinary forum in which a variety of professionals share results of research and practice, with the aim of better understanding the human encounter with death and assisting those who work with the dying and their families.
期刊最新文献
Perceived stress and death-related distress in older adults: Exploring the role of social support and emotional loneliness. Informal social support following bereavement: A scoping review of provider and recipient perspectives of helpful and unhelpful interactions. Death before birth: An encounter between Prenatal Pedagogy and the Pedagogy of Death. Cultural differences on baby loss experiences: A comparison of the US and New Zealand. Fathers' experiences of perinatal death following miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonatal death: A meta-ethnography.
×
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