Search

BackgroundMobile ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) permits real-time capture of self-reported participant behaviors and perceptual experiences. Reporting of mEMA protocols and compliance has been identified as problematic within systematic reviews of children, youth, and specific clinical populations of adults. ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the use of mEMA for self-reported behaviors and psychological constructs, mEMA protocol and compliance reporting, and associations between key components of mEMA protocols and compliance in studies of nonclinical and clinical samples of adults. MethodsIn total, 9 electronic databases were searched (2006-2016) for observational studies reporting compliance to mEMA for health-related data from adults (>18 years) in nonclinical and clinical settings. Screening and data extraction were undertaken by independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Narrative synthesis described participants, mEMA target, protocol, and compliance. Random effects meta-analysis explored factors associated with cohort compliance (monitoring duration, daily prompt frequency or schedule, device type, training, incentives, and burden score). Random effects analysis of variance (P≤.05) assessed differences between nonclinical and clinical data sets. ResultsOf the 168 eligible studies, 97/105 (57.7%) reported compliance in unique data sets (nonclinical=64/105 [61%], clinical=41/105 [39%]). The most common self-reported mEMA target was affect (primary target: 31/105, 29.5% data sets; secondary target: 50/105, 47.6% data sets). The median duration of the mEMA protocol was 7 days (nonclinical=7, clinical=12). Most protocols used a single time-based (random or interval) prompt type (69/105, 65.7%); median prompt frequency was 5 per day. The median number of items per prompt was similar for nonclinical (8) and clinical data sets (10). More than half of the data sets reported mEMA training (84/105, 80%) and provision of participant incentives (66/105, 62.9%). Less than half of the data sets reported number of prompts delivered (22/105, 21%), answered (43/105, 41%), criterion for valid mEMA data (37/105, 35.2%), or response latency (38/105, 36.2%). Meta-analysis (nonclinical=41, clinical=27) estimated an overall compliance of 81.9% (95% CI 79.1-84.4), with no significant difference between nonclinical and clinical data sets or estimates before or after data exclusions. Compliance was associated with prompts per day and items per prompt for nonclinical data sets. Although widespread heterogeneity existed across analysis (I2>90%), no compelling relationship was identified between key features of mEMA protocols representing burden and mEMA compliance. ConclusionsIn this 10-year sample of studies using the mEMA of self-reported health-related behaviors and psychological constructs in adult nonclinical and clinical populations, mEMA was applied across contexts and health conditions and to collect a range of health-related data. There was inconsistent reporting of compliance and key features within protocols, which limited the ability to confidently identify components of mEMA schedules likely to have a specific impact on compliance.

Exertional breathlessness is a cardinal symptom of cardiorespiratory disease. How does breathlessness abnormality, graded using normative reference equations during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), relate to self-reported and physiologic responses in people with chronic airflow limitation (CAL)? An analysis was done of people aged ≥ 40 years with CAL undergoing CPET in the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease study. Breathlessness intensity ratings (Borg CR10 scale [0-10 category-ratio scale for breathlessness intensity rating]) were evaluated in relation to power output, rate of oxygen uptake, and minute ventilation at peak exercise, using normative reference equations as follows: (1) probability of breathlessness normality (probability of having an equal or greater Borg CR10 rating among healthy people; lower probability reflecting more severe breathlessness) and (2) presence of abnormal breathlessness (rating above the upper limit of normal). Associations with relevant participant-reported and physiologic outcomes were evaluated. We included 330 participants (44% women): mean ± SD age, 64 ± 10 years (range, 40–89 years); FEV 1 /FVC, 57.3% ± 8.2%; FEV 1 , 75.6% ± 17.9% predicted. Abnormally low exercise capacity (peak rate of oxygen uptake < lower limit of normal) was present in 26%. Relative to peak power output, rate of oxygen uptake, and minute ventilation, abnormally high breathlessness was present in 26%, 25%, and 18% of participants. For all equations, abnormally high exertional breathlessness was associated with worse lung function, exercise capacity, self-reported symptom burden, physical activity, and health-related quality of life; and greater physiologic abnormalities during CPET. Abnormal breathlessness graded using CPET normative reference equations was associated with worse clinical, physiological, and functional outcomes in people with CAL, supporting construct validity of abnormal exertional breathlessness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: Most controlled trials of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) in people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have targeted anxiety and depression. (2) Methods: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial explored whether a comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation program (CPRP) with CBT for breathlessness or social group control (CPRP + SC) significantly improved health outcomes. (3) Results: People with moderate-to-severe COPD were block randomized (CPRP + CBT n = 52 or CPRP + SC n = 49). Primary outcomes (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADs), six-minute walk distance (6MWD)) and secondary outcomes (breathlessness, quality of life and habitual physical activity) were assessed before and 1, 6 and 12 months post intervention. Between-group differences were calculated with mixed models for each time point to baseline (intention to treat (ITT)). Participants (n = 101, mean ± SD age 70 ± 8.5 years, 54 (53%) males, FEV1% pred 47.7 ± 16.3) were similar between groups. Post intervention, primary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups at 1 (6MWD mean difference −7.5 [95% CI −34.3 to 19.4], HADs-A −0.3 [−1.4 to 0.9], HADs-D 0.2 [−0.8 to 1.3]), 6 (6MWD −11.5 [−38.1 to 15.1], HADs-A 1.1 [0.0 to 2.2], HADs-D 0.2 [−0.9 to 1.3]), or 12 months (6MWD −3.8 [−27.2 to 19.6], HADS-A −0.4 [−1.5 to 0.6], HADs-D −0.7 [−1.7 to 0.4]). (4) Conclusions: In this cohort, combining CBT with a CPRP did not provide additional health benefits beyond those achieved by a standard CPRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]