| Title |
Acceptability of smartphone text- and voice-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods among low income housing residents in New York City
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-017-2850-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dustin T. Duncan, William C. Goedel, James H. Williams, Brian Elbel |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of smartphone-based text message- and voice-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods among a sample of low-income housing residents in New York City. Using data from the community-based NYC Low Income Housing, Neighborhoods and Health Study (n = 112), the acceptability of text message- and voice-based EMA methods were assessed via survey. Overall, 88.4% of participants reported that they would participate in a study that utilized text message-based EMA. These analyses showed no appreciable differences by sub-groups (p > .05). Overall, 80.2% of participants reported that they would participate in a study that used voice-based EMA. This voice-based method was least acceptable among participants younger than 25 years old compared to participants of all other ages, χ(2)(2) = 10.107, p = .006 (among the younger participants 60.7% reported "yes" regarding the anticipated acceptability of voice-based EMA and 39.3% reported "no"). Overall, this work suggests that text message- and voice-based EMA methods are acceptable for use among low-income housing residents. However, the association between age and the acceptability of voice-based EMA suggests that these methods may be less suited for younger populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 21% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,450,513
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,580
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,705
of 327,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#119
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.