↓ Skip to main content

Study Protocol on Ecological Momentary Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life Using a Smartphone Application

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Study Protocol on Ecological Momentary Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life Using a Smartphone Application
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvana Mareva, David Thomson, Pietro Marenco, Víctor Estal Muñoz, Caroline V. Ott, Barbara Schmidt, Tobias Wingen, Angelos P. Kassianos

Abstract

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is a construct of increasing importance in modern healthcare, and has typically been assessed using retrospective instruments. While such measures have been shown to have predictive utility for clinical outcomes, several cognitive biases associated with human recall and current mood state may undermine their validity and reliability. Retrospective tools can be further criticized for their lack of ecology, as individuals are usually assessed in less natural settings such as hospitals and health centers, and may be obliged to spend time and money traveling to receive assessment. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is an alternative, as mobile assessment using mobile health (mHealth) technology has the potential to minimize biases and overcome many of these limitations. Employing an EMA methodology, we will use a smartphone application to collect data on real-time HRQoL, with an adapted version of the widely used WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. We aim to recruit a total of 450 healthy participants. Participants will be prompted by the application to report their real-time HRQoL over 2 weeks together with information on mood and current activities. At the end of 2 weeks, they will complete a retrospective assessment of their HRQoL and they will provide information about their sleep quality and perceived stress. The psychometric properties of real-time HRQoL will be assessed, including analysis of the factorial structure, reliability and validity of the measure, and compared with retrospective HRQoL responses for the same 2-week testing period. Further, we aim to identify factors associated with real-time HRQoL (e.g., mood, activities), the feasibility of the application, and within- and between-person variability in real-time HRQoL. We expect real-time HRQoL to have adequate validity and reliability, and positive responses on the feasibility of using a smartphone application for routine HRQoL assessment. The direct comparison of real-time and retrospective measures in this study will provide important novel insight into the efficacy of mHealth applications for HRQoL assessment. If shown to be valid, reliable and feasible for the collection of HRQoL data, mHealth applications may have future potential for facilitating clinical assessment, patient-physician communication, and monitoring individual HRQoL over course of treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Other 8 6%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 30 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 14%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 36 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,136,833
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,753
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,116
of 365,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#175
of 406 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 365,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 406 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.