The Use of Mobile-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA) Methodology to Assess Dietary Intake, Food Consumption Behaviours and Context in Young People: A Systematic Review
by
, and
Brigitte Battaglia
1,†, 
Lydia Lee
1,†,
Si Si Jia
2,*,
Stephanie Ruth Partridge
2,3 and
Margaret Allman-Farinelli
1
1
Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney Nursing School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
2
Engagement and Co-Design Research Hub, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
3
Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Healthcare 2022, 10(7), 1329; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071329
Submission received: 21 June 2022
/
Revised: 13 July 2022
/
Accepted: 13 July 2022
/
Published: 18 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Nutrition and Public Health)
Abstract
:Mobile-based ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) offers a novel method for dietary assessment and may reduce recall bias and participant burden. This review evaluated mEMA methodology and the feasibility, acceptability and validity as a dietary assessment method in young people. Five databases were searched from January 2008 to September 2021 for studies including healthy young people aged 16–30 years and used mEMA for obtaining dietary intake data, food consumption behaviours and/or contextual factors. Data on the method used to administer mEMA, compliance with recording and validation were extracted. A total of 46 articles from 39 independent studies were included, demonstrating a wide variation in mEMA methods. Signal-contingent prompting (timed notification to record throughout the day) was used in 26 studies, 9 used event-contingent (food consumption triggered recordings), while 4 used both. Monitoring periods varied and most studies reported a compliance rate of 80% or more. Two studies found mEMA to be burdensome and six reported mEMA as easy to use. Most studies (31/39) reported using previously validated questions. mEMA appears to be a feasible and acceptable methodology to assess dietary intake and food consumption in near real time.
1. Introduction
In the transition from adolescence to young adulthood, young people experience significant personal development, increased independence and freedom of choice [1]. These major life transitions also present health challenges, including increased vulnerability to weight gain [1,2]. Compared to other age groups, young people have the highest mean gain in body mass index, placing them at a higher risk of overweight and obesity [3]. This weight trajectory is concerning as poor dietary behaviours and choices developed at a young age often persist into adulthood, affecting health outcomes later in life [1,2].
Identifying the behaviours and contextual factors that influence patterns of dietary intake in young people has been challenging to capture accurately due to the limitations of traditional dietary assessment methods [4]. For instance, most of the current methods used in practice, including 24 h recalls, food frequency questionaries and diet records, are subject to either recall and/or social desirability biases which reduce their validity [4]. Such self-report methods are often burdensome and subject to misreporting [5]. To overcome some of these limitations, assessment methods such as digital food diaries and image-based dietary assessments have emerged [4]. Further advances in technologies and their widespread societal adoption have created new opportunities to obtain and consider food consumption behaviours and the contextual factors surrounding eating events as they occur in everyday life [5,6].
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a real-time data capture method originally used for psychological assessments that can monitor human phenomena as they occur in their natural environment [5,7]. EMA has appeared useful in obtaining social, psychological and environmental contexts surrounding dynamic patterns of diet behaviours simultaneously while removing the need for recall memory [6]. Most EMA research in recent times has been delivered over mobile technology due to its ubiquity, particularly with young people [8]. Mobile ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) has the advantage of being incorporated seamlessly into daily living by engaging the individual to provide samples of information in short bursts as it occurs in real time [9]. Sampling approaches to obtain information can be defined as signal-contingent or event-contingent. Signal-contingent sampling is a time-based approach that involves signalling the participant with a prompt to complete the mEMA (i.e., to recall the dietary intake or context that occurred within the recent time interval). Prompts can be sent at fixed times (intervals) or at random times throughout the day [5,10]. The other approach, event-contingent, involves the participant completing the mEMA when a relevant event has occurred (e.g., an eating or drinking event) [5]. For event-contingent sampling, this can be further differentiated into self-initiated or device-initiated. Self-initiated assessment requires the participant to self-initiate an mEMA recording in response to a specific event or behaviour of interest in which they engaged (e.g., eating). Device-initiated refers to the mobile device auto-initiating the mEMA in response to the detection of an event or behaviour (e.g., GPS tracking or wrist accelerometry) [10].
mEMA has potential to detect nutrition-related problems, allowing for earlier interventions in real-life settings. Previous reviews of EMA studies have focused on psychological and health-related behaviours such as emotions [11], alcohol use [12], craving and substance use [13], physical activity [10], sedentary activity [10] and dietary behaviours [14] across diverse age groups ranging from children and adolescents [15] to older adults [16]. Yet, few reviews have investigated the broad processes of mEMA to capture food consumption and related contextual factors of eating/drinking in young people. Additionally, young people are an understudied population with fast-changing priorities, high technology consumption and increased autonomy around eating and drinking, often leading to poor dietary choices; thus, it was deemed appropriate to target individuals aged 16–30 years [3,8]. Therefore, the current review aimed to close this knowledge gap by focusing on three key objectives: (1) examining the methodology of studies using mEMA to measure various aspects of food consumption, (2) evaluating the administration methods of mEMA and (3) assessing its feasibility, acceptability and validity as a dietary assessment method.
2. Materials and Methods
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist [17]. The review protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework (registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WPC7Y; accessed on 24 January 2022).
2.1. Search Strategy
The following electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2008 to 8 September 2021: MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via OvidSP, CINAHL via Ebsco, PsycINFO via Ovid and Scopus. The year 2008 was chosen because it marked the introduction of applications (apps) to the digital marketplace [18]. Key concepts (young people, mEMA and outcomes such as dietary intake, food consumption behaviours and contextual factors) and related terms were searched in all five databases using their appropriate syntax including truncations (*) and wildcards ($). The search strategy was limited to the English language and humans. The MEDLINE search strategy is presented in Table 1 and the full search strategies from the other four databases are available upon request.
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the review were developed using a modified PICO framework based on population, EMA measurement method, setting and outcomes. The population was young people aged between 16 and 30 years old. This age range was identified as a time of growing independence and freedom of choice in young people before the typical life changes of marriage and children [1]. There was no restriction to participant characteristics such as gender, sex and race/ethnicity, except participants needed to be healthy without presenting chronic health conditions. The intervention criteria included any form of mEMA delivered on a portable electronic device. The primary outcomes included assessment of nutrition and diet such as dietary intake, food consumption behaviours and context if reported. The search strategy included all peer-reviewed primary research study designs conducted in humans. Qualitative studies and systematic reviews were excluded. All relevant studies from 2008 to present were included. There was no restriction placed on geographical location. The exclusion criteria included studies that were not peer reviewed, not in the English language and studies on young people with chronic health conditions such as eating and psychological disorders, diabetes, chronic dieting and post-bariatric surgery recipients, as these conditions do not represent typical food consumption behaviours [19]. Studies that solely focused on alcohol consumption were also excluded.
2.3. Screening and Selection of Studies
The identified studies obtained from all five databases were exported to the Endnote X9 citation management software [20] and then transferred to the Covidence platform [21]. Duplicate studies were screened and removed by automation tools firstly in Endnote and again in Covidence. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened against the eligibility criteria. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded by following the hierarchy of the exclusion criteria and appropriate reasoning(s) provided. To reach a consensus, disagreements concerning eligibility were resolved through discussions between all review authors (BB, LL, MAF, SJ and SRP). The selection process of included studies was documented following the PRISMA flow diagram, presented in Figure 1.
2.4. Data Extraction
The data extraction table was designed and modified according to the two standardised forms—the Adapted STROBE Checklist for Reporting EMA studies ‘CREMAS’ used in previous reviews [5,10]. Two reviewers (BB and LL) independently extracted key information from all included studies. Data included: authors, year and country of publication, title, DOI, study design and overview, study aim(s), sample size, target population, participant characteristics and eligibility criteria. In addition, details of mEMA methodology were also extracted, including purpose/health domain, if mEMA training was provided, delivery mode, sampling approach, prompt frequency, prompt interval, reminders, prompt deactivation, the time required to complete one mEMA, monitoring period, latency, compliance rate, reactivity, missing data and incentives. Furthermore, attrition rate, user experience and participant burden, validity and outcomes of interest (such as dietary intake, food consumption behaviours and contextual factors) were extracted. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through discussion and consulting third experts (MAF, SP and SJ) when necessary.
2.5. Data Synthesis and Analysis
The study, sample characteristics and mEMA methodology of all included studies were summarised. The feasibility, acceptability and validity of each independent study was also summarised in tabular form. The findings were synthesised into a narrative review.
2.6. Quality Assessment
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist was used to assess the quality of each study according to its study design [22]. The included papers were either cross-sectional surveys or longitudinal cohort designs. Two authors (BB and LL) independently appraised each paper and together reached an overall agreement. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved between all review authors (LL, BB, MAF, SP and SJ). The cross-sectional survey checklist had 8 items and the cohort 11 items. Each item was answered with either a ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘unclear’ or ‘not applicable’. To determine the overall quality of evidence presented in the study, the following criteria were adapted from Shi et al. and used: ‘good’ (only ‘yes’ or ‘not applicable’ ratings), ‘fair’ (1 to 2 ‘no’ or ‘unclear’ ratings) and ‘poor’ (3 or more ‘no’ or ‘unclear’ ratings) [23].
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
A total of 6615 records were identified from the five databases (Figure 1). After the automated and manual removal of duplicates, a total of 4203 records were screened. Then, another set of records (n = 3805) and duplicates (n = 59) were manually excluded, leaving a total of 339 full-text articles. Of these, 71 were abstracts only; thus, 268 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 45 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. An additional record was identified through forward chaining, which resulted in a total of 46 articles being included in this review. Data were extracted from each of the 46 articles and then merged with their respective studies where necessary (seven in total) and reported herein as independent studies (n = 39) [8,9,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67].
3.2. Study and Sample Characteristics
Fourteen studies were conducted in the United States [8,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,33,35,36,40,43,45,50,59,63,64], seven in Germany [37,39,41,61,62,65,66,67], six in Austria and Germany [49,51,52,56], five in Australia [38,46,47,48,57,58], two in Austria [53,54] and one each in China [60], Poland [31,32], Sweden [42], Taiwan [44] and the Netherlands [9]. All studies were observational studies, including 3 cohort studies and 36 cross-sectional studies (Table 2). The studies were conducted with a range of target populations inclusive of young people such as adolescents, high-school, college or university students and adults including ethnic minority mothers [33] and healthcare workers [44]. The sample size of the studies ranged from 12 to 675 participants. Seven studies included females only [33,38,52,54,55,63,64]. Most studies had a higher female representation compared to male, ranging from 66% to 97%, and one study had a higher male population of 72% [30]. Studies that sampled from a general population reported a mix of races and ethnicities, including Caucasian (23% to 83%), Asian (4% to 42%), Hispanic (3% to 29%) and African American (1% to 23%). One study sampled adolescents with lower socioeconomic status with 67% of participants identifying as Hispanic [27,28,29]. The mean BMI or percentile was reported in 27 studies [26,27,28,29,31,32,33,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,44,49,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,64,65,67]. All but two [31,32,33] studies had a majority of participants within the healthy BMI range of 20 to 24.9 kg/m2. Most studies sampled students completing a tertiary level of education with 27% to 75% employed either part or full time.
3.3. The Use of mEMA for Dietary Assessment Method and Diet-Related Behaviours
Among the 39 mEMA studies, 25 reported dietary intake data [9,24,26,27,30,31,32,33,35,36,39,41,43,44,45,46,48,50,52,53,54,57,58,61,62,63,65,66]. Of these studies, 14 examined intake of a variety of food, food groups and beverages [9,24,27,30,33,41,43,45,48,50,52,57,58,61,62,63], 2 assessed food intake only [65,66], 7 specifically focused on the intake of high energy foods and beverages [26,35,36,39,44,53,54], 1 study examined intake of high-fat foods [31,32] and 1 assessed sugar-sweetened beverage consumption only [46,47]. In addition to dietary intake, 34 of the 39 studies examined associated food consumption behaviours [9,24,26,27,30,31,32,33,35,36,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,48,49,50,51,52,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]: these included comfort eating and overeating behaviours [38,55], healthy versus unhealthy eating [56], and eating to match their dieting goals [52], food desires [37,51], thoughts and cravings of snacks and principal meals [53], and emotions and feelings [60]. Other contextual factors have been explored in 37 of the 39 studies [9,24,26,27,30,33,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. There were 8 assessed environmental factors (e.g., location of consumption or work schedule), 11 assessed social factors (e.g., whom participants were with during consumption), 24 examined psychological factors (e.g., stress, affect, mood), 15 examined biological factors (e.g., hunger, cravings, appetite) and five studied physical factors (e.g., availability of foods). Some studies investigated other lifestyle-related chronic disease risk factors such as physical activity, sedentary activity, cigarette craving and reasons for smoking and sleep.
In most studies, mEMA was used as the sole method for collecting dietary information. Eleven studies reported using mEMA in combination with other technologies to collect data on health outcomes. One study used mEMA concurrently with a chewing sensor and digital food scale as part of the development of a ‘mobile- or mHealth system’ to evaluate the acceptability, usability and limitations of this system to self-monitor dietary habits [42]. Two studies combined mEMA with an accelerometer to assess the interrelations of physical activity and dietary intake [45,60] and one with a smartphone sensor [48] to collect additional data on physical activity and sedentary behaviour passively. Two studies collected saliva samples with each mEMA data entry to assess physiological stress markers: cortisol, alpha-amylase and flow rate [61,62]. One study added the additional function of photographic food records which were self-initiated by the participant separate from the mEMA items [33]. Four of the applications used for mEMA had geographical location (GPS) or information systems (GIS) to collect information on food environments and daily activity [25,33,48,60]. One study directly compared mEMA to handwritten EMA to ascertain differences in compliance [26].
3.4. Data Input Modalities
Table 2 presents the data input modalities employed by the studies. A smartphone application was the most common delivery mode used by 26 out of 39 studies [8,9,24,25,30,31,32,33,35,37,41,42,45,46,47,48,49,51,52,53,54,56,57,58,59,60,65,66,67]. Of the remaining studies, six used short text message service (SMS) [26,38,39,40,50,55], three used a personal digital assistant (PDA) [27,28,29,43,64], one used email [36], one used an iPod Touch [61,62] and another used a palmtop computer [63]. One study gave participants the option to be sent the EMA survey via email or SMS with a link to the survey [44]. The smartphone applications selected by researchers varied among studies with only four using the same application (MovisensXS®) [41,45,65,66]. The other applications were unique to each study. The SMS delivery modes utilised automated bulk messaging systems to send a hyperlink to the EMA survey at each prompt [38,39,40,55]. One study did not report the automated bulk text messaging service used but specified using SurveySignal® for the EMA survey [50]. One survey used SMS to prompt via mProve® software and required participants to directly send a text reply with their responses [26].
3.5. mEMA Sampling Approach, Prompt Frequency and Interval
Both signal-contingent and event-contingent sampling approaches were used in the included studies (Table 2). For the event-contingent sampling, it was further classified to whether it was self-initiated, device-initiated or both, as proposed in the CREMAS framework [5]. Of the 39 studies, 27 used signal-contingent sampling [8,9,24,25,26,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,44,45,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,60,61,62,63,64] and 7 studies [41,43,46,47,59,65,66,67] implemented an event-contingent, self-initiated sampling design. Of the seven studies, participants were asked to report eating or drinking occasions either before [66], during [41,42,46,47,59,65,67] or soon after the occasion [43]. One of the studies allowed forgotten meals to be recorded afterward, and these were identified as such for the analysis [65]. Only one study used event-contingent sampling that utilised both device-initiated and self-initiated forms [42]. Four studies incorporated a sampling design that was both signal-contingent and event-contingent via self-initiation [27,28,29,51,57,59]. Only 2 of the 39 studies included an end of the day assessment for participants to complete [27,28,29,33].
The frequency and schedule of prompts were reported in all 32 signal-contingent studies [8,9,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,42,44,45,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,60,61,62,63,64]. The frequency of prompts varied from once daily [36,48] to 24 times per day [64]. Most studies (59%) sent prompts between 4 and 7 times a day [9,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,37,38,39,40,44,45,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,60,61,62,63] (Table 3). All but 1 of the 32 signal-contingent studies reported a prompting schedule which was either at a fixed (n = 19) [9,26,31,32,33,35,36,39,40,49,51,52,53,54,56,61,62,64] or random time (n = 12) [8,24,25,27,28,29,30,37,38,44,45,48,50,55,57,58,60]. The fixed times included every hour [35,64], every two and a half hours [40,51,52,56], every three hours [9,33,34,39,51,53,54,61,62], every four hours [31,32,49,52] and once at night [36]. Some studies sent prompts at randomised times within fixed time windows [24,27,37,44,48]. For example, prompts were sent twice between the four-time windows: 9 a.m.–12 p.m., 12–3 p.m., 3–7 p.m. and 7–10 p.m. [8,24,25]. In other studies, prompts were sent at random times within a single, wider time window, making sure they were sent at least one to three hours apart [30,38,45,50,55]. For example, in one study, prompts were sent between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. with a minimum of 1 h apart [55]. Only two studies did not report a prompt schedule [57,58,60]. In 4 of the 39 studies, the prompt schedule was based the individual’s typical predetermined meal times and bedtime [26], adjusted according to school and non-school days [27,28,29], individually selected to cover mornings, middays and late afternoons [33,34] and accustomed to shift work schedule and wake–sleep pattern [44].
3.6. Monitoring Period
Across the 39 mEMA studies, total monitoring periods varied from two days to nine months (Table 3). Most studies monitored for a period between 2 and 14 consecutive days [9,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,43,44,45,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. Only one study monitored for three or four non-consecutive days, including one weekend day over a two-week duration [46,47], and one study monitored two blocks of six days over two weeks [51]. Two studies had varied monitoring periods such as 14 to 21 days [42] and a 16-week schedule of follow-up EMAs over 22 weeks [48]. Comulada et al. monitored for six months [33].
3.7. Protocol Adherence (Training, Reminders, Deactivation)
Training was provided to participants prior to commencing the EMA protocol in 30 out of 39 studies [8,24,25,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,35,37,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,49,51,52,53,54,56,57,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,66]. Around half of the included studies [8,24,25,27,28,29,30,33,35,36,37,38,39,40,42,43,48,51,54,55,59,61,62,64,66,67] 21 out of 39 sent no prompts for completion. Timing and frequency of reminders differed across studies. Reminders were sent either once or twice at intervals ranging from 5 to 60 min [9,31,32,44,45,50,52,53,54,56,63]. Two studies sent a morning and an evening reminder [41,65] and four studies reminded their participants once a day to enhance compliance [26,49,57,58,60]. For one study using event-contingent (self-initiated) mEMA sampling, a reminder was sent if three hours elapsed without an eating occasion reported [46,47]. Prompts were reported as being deactivated by the device in 13 studies [8,24,25,31,32,37,40,44,45,49,50,51,52,56] or by the user in one study if not responded to in real time [63]. Prompt deactivation times ranged from within 15 min up to 1 h [37,45] [8,24,25,31,32,40,44,49,50,51,52,56]. Three studies allowed the user to delay responding to a prompt for up to one hour when impossible or unsafe to reply [51,52]. Only 6 out of 39 studies reported the average time taken for the participant to receive and respond to prompts, known as latency [8,24,25,26,36,49,51]. The latencies in these studies ranged from 7.25 min [8,24,25] to up to 6 h [36]. Six studies reported the time taken to complete one mEMA survey [8,9,24,25,27,28,29,36,45,64]. The times ranged from 1 min [8,24,25] to 10 min [36], with less than 5 min being the most common.
3.8. Feasibility
Compliance was the key feature for assessing the feasibility of mEMA. A total of 30 of the 39 studies reported compliance and this ranged from less than 1% to 98% [9,24,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,35,36,37,39,40,42,44,45,46,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58,59,61,62,63] (Table 3). Twenty studies recorded a compliance rate over 80% [26,27,28,29,31,32,35,36,37,39,40,45,46,47,49,51,52,53,54,56,57,58,61,62]. Three studies found that the response rates were less likely to be answered on weekends than weekdays [8,24,25,30,33,34], and one study found compliance increased from 70% at week one to 76% in week two [42]. A total of 8 of the 39 studies stated whether the compliance rate was associated with other variables [9,24,30,31,32,45,55,61,62,63]. Of these, gender was significantly associated with the mEMA completion, with males less likely to complete them. Four studies reported a compliance rate below 60% [44,48,50,59] with one of these studies being an extreme outlier of <1% [48].
3.9. Acceptability
Acceptability was assessed by missing data, participant burden, reactivity and usability. In 17 of the 39 studies, missing data ranged from 0% to 31% with reasons being technical issues, incompleteness, invalid reporting and low response rate [8,30,31,32,33,36,37,38,39,40,41,44,45,55,56,57,58,61,62,66]. In the 10 studies that reported participant burden, they stated mEMA reduced burden due to brevity, ability to skip prompts and focusing on types and not portion sizes of food consumption [24,33,35,39,41,43,45,52,57,58]. Two studies reported high burden was due to the duration of the mEMA protocol (14 days [44] and up to 22 weeks [48]). Only seven studies reported on reactivity, that is, if the mEMA altered usual behaviour [35,39,49,53,55,56,64]. Six found no reactivity associations between eating behaviours and snack-related thoughts while using mEMA [35,39,53,55,56,64]. One study found low/moderate reactivity [49]. Similarly, most studies did not report on the usability of mEMA, with only six reporting data [9,26,33,42,43,59]. They highlighted that the app was easy, satisfying and comfortable to use; however, some stated it was slow, the colour scheme was not appealing [42], they experienced technical difficulties [59] and the surveys were time-consuming [9].
3.10. Validity of mEMA Methodology
In 4 of the 39 studies, the mEMA methodology was pilot tested [8,29,31,34,47]. Three of these studies included validation as a dietary assessment method by comparing it to standard tools [8,31,34,47]. The validation of one study occurred using the online Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour (ASA24) dietary recall and found high match rates across food types (79 to 94%) [8]. Another study used a three-day estimated food record [31] and one validated with food frequency questionnaires, resulting in high inter-method reliability (p < 0.05) [34]. Lastly, one study validated their mEMA against measured energy expenditure using a validated multi sensor monitor (SenseWear Armband), comparable in accuracy and reliability to doubly labelled water [47]. The study found good agreement and reliability after comparing the estimated energy intake obtained from the mEMA [47]. The validity of the mEMA items used was reported in 31 out of 39 studies. Dietary intake and food consumption behaviour items included in 17 studies were based on previous research [8,9,24,25,27,28,29,30,35,36,37,39,40,41,45,49,50,56,57,58,61,62,65]. Most studies reported using validated questionnaires of relevance to their study aims. Questionnaires were used to collect dietary intake data [31,36] and food consumption behaviours [56,67], including food addiction and craving [51,52]. In 3 of the 31 studies, country specific databases and surveys were used [44,48,66]. Nine studies reported data on emotion, a psychological contextual factor, by using questionnaires in their mEMA items [27,28,29,35,38,40,44,49,55,56]. To collect data on the specific emotion of stress, questionnaires were used by six studies [27,28,29,36,48,49,52,56].
3.11. Quality Assessment
Among the 36 independent studies that used cross-sectional designs, 16 were assessed as fair quality [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,38,39,44,45,46,52,53,56,57,58,61,62,63], 19 were poor [9,26,36,40,41,42,43,49,50,51,54,55,59,60,64,65,66,67] and only 1 study was rated as good quality [35] (Table 4). For the poor-quality studies, it was hard to determine the inclusion criteria, exposure/outcome measures, confounding factors and type of statistical analysis used. Of three longitudinal cohort studies, two were of fair quality [24,48] and one was rated as poor quality [37]. Regarding the fair-quality studies, the strategies for dealing with the confounders were unclear or not stated, and follow-up information was not addressed. The poor-quality study did not include eligibility criteria and further details on follow-up were not explained clearly.
Cross-sectional questions (1–8): 1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? 2. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? 3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? 4. Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? 5. Were confounding factors identified? 6. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? 7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? 8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
Cohort questions (1–11): 1. Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? 2. Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? 3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? 4. Were confounding factors identified? 5. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? 6. Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? 7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? 8. Was the follow up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? 9. Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons for loss to follow up described and explored? 10. Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized? 11. Was appropriate statistical analysis?
4. Discussion
This review shows that mEMA can be used to collect data on food and beverage intake, dietary habits, food behaviours and contexts such as the physical environment, emotions and social interactions in young adult populations. Most studies employ smartphone applications to deliver signal-contingent prompts and collect data from participants rather than event-triggered prompts, perhaps because of the need for memory to trigger recording. Compliance was above 80% in half the studies with varying schedules of prompts, reminders and frequency and duration of data collection. Attrition from studies ranged from almost none to one in two participants, but overall attrition and compliance would appear to support the feasibility and acceptability of mEMA. A major limitation of the current evidence base is that the quality of studies is overall poor, with only one rated as good quality, and most assessment of dietary intake has not been validated. Thus, further studies may be needed to clarify findings and determine the most effective protocols to administer EMA in young adults maximising compliance and participation.
Factors that would improve compliance might include training in the system, lower participant burden and shorter study durations. More than half of the studies reported training in advance of the study and Stone and Shiffman have previously made recommendations that encourage reporting on training status when documenting EMA protocols in methods [68]. The study with the lowest compliance of <1% monitored for 16 weeks once per day over a 22-week period. However, other studies ran for longer times with better compliance. It remains unclear if event-contingent (self-initiated) or signal-contingent prompts lead to better recording. The former depends on participants’ memory to record in response to food ingestion, which may be problematic but may also mean improved accuracy as it is in real time. Conversely, sending prompts to record may occur more distal to food consumption and hence rely on memory to recall food and beverage intake. With signal-contingent sampling, the frequency of prompts and programming of prompts around reported mealtimes reduces the time period between ingestion and recording, thereby eliminating the need to recall what was eaten over a longer period of time (i.e., 24 h, 3 days) [4]. It should be noted only one study used event-contingent sampling via the use of a wearable device that detected eating. A previous review of children and adolescents reported no advantage of wearables over mobile EMA only [69]. However, as a recent review noted there are few wearable sensors available that could be used for event-contingent mEMA.
Finding the appropriate number and duration of sampling to maintain compliance to the protocol remains a challenge for many researchers. In the current review of young adults, it was found among the eight studies with the highest compliance rates (>90%) [26,37,39,54,57,58,61,62] that five signal-contingent collections of data a day was the most common frequency employed. A previous review and meta-analysis of EMA in children and adolescents reported that the average daily number of prompts was 4.2 for non-clinical participants and 3.6 for clinical participants, and the weighted average compliance rate was 78.3%. The duration of the sampling period did not alter compliance [69]. In a meta-analysis by Williams et al., 68 data sets (41 non-clinical and 27 clinical) in adults were included and it was estimated that overall compliance to mEMA was 81.9% [70]. The median number of prompts per day was found to be five in non-clinical data sets and four in clinical data sets. Interestingly, less frequent prompting of 1–3 prompts per day increased compliance in non-clinical participants compared to 6 or more with 87% and 79.4% compliance rates, respectively. No significance was found in clinical data sets. The meta-analysis by Williams et al. has given insight into compliance relating to prompt frequency; however, the focus of their review was not solely on diet but rather health-related behaviours, which included a small proportion of studies on eating behaviours [70]. Schembre et al. conducted a systematic review on mEMA focusing on diet studies inclusive of both children and adults. They found prompt frequencies of the included signal-contingent studies ranged from 3 to 14 prompts per day with a mean response rate of 79% [4]. Similarly, Maugeri and Barchitta conducted a review in children and adults and found the prompt frequency ranged from 1 to 14 times per day [14].
There were only four studies that performed validation studies for the use of mEMA as a dietary assessment method by comparison to traditional methods such as food records, 24 h recalls and a novel measure of energy expenditure instead of the traditional doubly labelled water. Hence, this limits the ability to recommend mEMA as an effective dietary assessment method. However, there are other advantages of the mEMA method in studying food consumption in that it allows real time evaluation of the social, emotional and environmental context in a way a 24 h recall cannot. Thus, the decision of whether to employ mEMA should depend on the motive for monitoring diet. Clearly mEMA would not appear to be the method of choice for large epidemiological cohort studies of diet disease relationships as outlined in a previous systemic review [4]. However, it may well be useful to monitor changes in nutrition behaviours in different contexts and in response to an intervention or to plan an intervention in an individual or population. Collection of food and beverage consumption to yield macronutrient and micronutrient data is not required in many scenarios in order to improve an individual’s dietary behaviour.
Overall, as noted by others [5,71] assessing the mEMA methodology and its feasibility, acceptability and validity remained challenging in this review due to the inconsistencies and absence of key factors in reporting across studies. The major strengths of the current review include an extensive search of multiple databases, resulting in an ample number of mEMA studies for screening and selection. The review focused on mEMA, which is applicable to the digital-savvy 16- to 30-year-olds. A strength of this review is compliance with recognised standards for reporting in systematic reviews and EMA studies and the quality appraisal [5,17]. However, it is acknowledged that this systematic review is not without some limitations. The year 2008 was selected as the year applications were introduced to the digital marketplace and accessible on smartphones, but this may mean some EMA studies with personal digital assistants and text messages were omitted. However, our purpose was to provide an evidence base for those wishing to employ mEMA in the current digital environment. In addition, the target population was young people, so the findings cannot be extrapolated to other age groups such as early adolescents and older people. Only English studies were included, yielding a language bias as per the eligibility criteria.
5. Conclusions
The current review of 39 independent studies offers unique insights into the uses of mEMA in young people aged 16 to 30 years old. This population is well documented to have poor diet quality and experience the most weight gain among adults. Measuring their food consumption and the context of this consumption is an important step in formulating intervention. mEMA has demonstrated potential to become a feasible and acceptable methodology in assessing food and beverage consumption with the advantage of providing social, emotional, and food environment contextual information. Further research in the technology of wearables and detection of eating as well as validated questionnaires for data collection would advance the field.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.S.J., S.R.P. and M.A.-F.; methodology, B.B. and L.L., investigation, B.B. and L.L.; writing—original draft preparation, B.B. and L.L.; writing—review and editing, S.S.J., S.R.P. and M.A.-F.; supervision, S.S.J., S.R.P. and M.A.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Poobalan, A.S.; Aucott, L.S.; Clarke, A.; Smith, W.C.S. Diet behaviour among young people in transition to adulthood (18–25 year olds): A mixed method study. Health Psychol. Behav. Med. 2014, 2, 909–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winpenny, E.M.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.; White, M.; Klepp, K.-I.; Wold, B.; Lien, N. Changes in diet through adolescence and early adulthood: Longitudinal trajectories and association with key life transitions. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allman-Farinelli, M.A. Nutrition Promotion to Prevent Obesity in Young Adults. Healthcare 2015, 3, 809–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schembre, S.M.; Liao, Y.; O’Connor, S.G.; Hingle, M.D.; Shen, S.E.; Hamoy, K.G.; Huh, J.; Dunton, G.F.; Weiss, R.; Thomson, C.A.; et al. Mobile Ecological Momentary Diet Assessment Methods for Behavioral Research: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018, 6, e11170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liao, Y.; Skelton, K.; Dunton, G.; Bruening, M. A Systematic Review of Methods and Procedures Used in Ecological Momentary Assessments of Diet and Physical Activity Research in Youth: An Adapted STROBE Checklist for Reporting EMA Studies (CREMAS). J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 18, e151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nam, S.; Griggs, S.; Ash, G.I.; Dunton, G.F.; Huang, S.; Batten, J.; Parekh, N.; Whittemore, R. Ecological momentary assessment for health behaviors and contextual factors in persons with diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2021, 174, 108745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiffman, S.; Stone, A.A.; Hufford, M.R. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2008, 4, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruening, M.; van Woerden, I.; Todd, M.; Brennhofer, S.; Laska, M.N.; Dunton, G. A Mobile Ecological Momentary Assessment Tool (devilSPARC) for Nutrition and Physical Activity Behaviors in College Students: A Validation Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 18, e209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spook, J.E.; Paulussen, T.; Kok, G.; Van Empelen, P. Monitoring dietary intake and physical activity electronically: Feasibility, usability, and ecological validity of a mobile-based Ecological Momentary Assessment tool. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degroote, L.; DeSmet, A.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Van Dyck, D.; Crombez, G. Content validity and methodological considerations in ecological momentary assessment studies on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, N.T.; Jiang, Y.; Zilioli, S. Momentary emotions and salivary cortisol: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2021, 125, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wray, T.B.; Merrill, J.E.; Monti, P.M. Using Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to Assess Situation-Level Predictors of Alcohol Use and Alcohol-Related Consequences. Alcohol Res. 2014, 36, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Serre, F.; Fatseas, M.; Swendsen, J.; Auriacombe, M. Ecological momentary assessment in the investigation of craving and substance use in daily life: A systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015, 148, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maugeri, A.; Barchitta, M. A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment of Diet: Implications and Perspectives for Nutritional Epidemiology. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mason, T.B.; Do, B.; Wang, S.; Dunton, G.F. Ecological momentary assessment of eating and dietary intake behaviors in children and adolescents: A systematic review of the literature. Appetite 2020, 144, 104465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cain, A.E.; Depp, C.A.; Jeste, D.V. Ecological momentary assessment in aging research: A critical review. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2009, 43, 987–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKay, F.H.; Cheng, C.; Wright, A.; Shill, J.; Stephens, H.; Uccellini, M. Evaluating mobile phone applications for health behaviour change: A systematic review. J. Telemed. Telecare 2018, 24, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinson, C.A.; Sala, M.; Fewell, L.; Brosof, L.C.; Fournier, L.; Lenze, E.J. Meal and snack-time eating disorder cognitions predict eating disorder behaviors and vice versa in a treatment seeking sample: A mobile technology based ecological momentary assessment study. Behav. Res. Ther. 2018, 105, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EndNote, Version X9.3.3; Clarivate: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013.
- Covidence Systematic Review Software, Veritas Health Innovation: Melbourne, Australia, 2021. Available online: www.covidence.org(accessed on 9 September 2021).
- Moola, S.; Munn, Z.; Tufanaru, C.; Aromataris, E.; Sears, K.; Sfetcu, R.; Currie, M.; Lisy, K.; Qureshi, R.; Mattis, P.; et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; Aromataris, E., Munn, Z., Eds.; JBI: Adelaide, SA, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Davies, A.; Allman-Farinelli, M. The Association Between Food Insecurity and Dietary Outcomes in University Students: A Systematic Review. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2021, 121, 2475–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashurst, J.; van Woerden, I.; Dunton, G.; Todd, M.; Ohri-Vachaspati, P.; Swan, P.; Bruening, M. The Association among Emotions and Food Choices in First-Year College Students Using mobile-Ecological Momentary Assessments. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bruening, M.; Ohri-Vachaspati, P.; Brewis, A.; Laska, M.; Todd, M.; Hruschka, D.; Schaefer, D.R.; Whisner, C.M.; Dunton, G. Longitudinal social networks impacts on weight and weight-related behaviors assessed using mobile-based ecological momentary assessments: Study Protocols for the SPARC study. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Berkman, E.T.; Giuliani, N.R.; Pruitt, A.K. Comparison of text messaging and paper-and-pencil for ecological momentary assessment of food craving and intake. Appetite 2014, 81, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borgogna, N.; Lockhart, G.; Grenard, J.L.; Barrett, T.; Shiffman, S.; Reynolds, K.D. Ecological momentary assessment of urban adolescents’ technology use and cravings for unhealthy snacks and drinks: Differences by ethnicity and sex. J. Acad Nutr. Diet 2015, 115, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Doan, S.N.; Xie, B.; Zhou, Y.; Lei, X.; Reynolds, K.D. Loneliness and cravings for sugar-sweetened beverages among adolescents. Pediatric Obes. 2022, 17, e12834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grenard, J.L.; Stacy, A.W.; Shiffman, S.; Baraldi, A.N.; MacKinnon, D.P.; Lockhart, G.; Kisbu-Sakarya, Y.; Boyle, S.; Beleva, Y.; Koprowski, C.; et al. Sweetened drink and snacking cues in adolescents: A study using ecological momentary assessment. Appetite 2013, 67, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cerrada, C.J.; Ra, C.K.; Shin, H.S.; Dzubur, E.; Huh, J. Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Identify Common Smoking Situations Among Korean American Emerging Adults. Prev. Sci. 2016, 17, 892–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chmurzynska, A.; Mlodzik-Czyzewska, M.A.; Malinowska, A.M.; Czarnocinska, J.; Wiebe, D. Use of a Smartphone Application Can Improve Assessment of High-Fat Food Consumption in Overweight Individuals. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chmurzynska, A.; Mlodzik-Czyzewska, M.A.; Malinowska, A.M.; Radziejewska, A.; Mikolajczyk-Stecyna, J.; Bulczak, E.; Wiebe, D.J. Greater self-reported preference for fat taste and lower fat restraint are associated with more frequent intake of high-fat food. Appetite 2021, 159, 105053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comulada, W.S.; Swendeman, D.; Koussa, M.K.; Mindry, D.; Medich, M.; Estrin, D.; Mercer, N.; Ramanathan, N. Adherence to self-monitoring healthy lifestyle behaviours through mobile phone-based ecological momentary assessments and photographic food records over 6 months in mostly ethnic minority mothers. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swendeman, D.; Comulada, W.S.; Koussa, M.; Worthman, C.M.; Estrin, D.; Rotheram-Borus, M.J.; Ramanathan, N. Longitudinal Validity and Reliability of Brief Smartphone Self-Monitoring of Diet, Stress, and Physical Activity in a Diverse Sample of Mothers. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018, 6, e176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cummings, J.R.; Mamtora, T.; Tomiyama, A.J. Non-food rewards and highly processed food intake in everyday life. Appetite 2019, 142, 104355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Finkelstein-Fox, L.; Gnall, K.E.; Park, C.L. Mindfulness moderates daily stress and comfort food snacking linkages: A multilevel examination. J. Behav. Med. 2020, 43, 1062–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hofmann, W.; Adriaanse, M.; Vohs, K.D.; Baumeister, R.F. Dieting and the self-control of eating in everyday environments: An experience sampling study. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holmes, M.; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M.; Skouteris, H.; Broadbent, J. Tests of an extension of the dual pathway model of bulimic symptoms to the state-based level. Eat. Behav. 2014, 15, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inauen, J.; Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N.; Stadler, G.; Scholz, U. Mind the Gap? An Intensive Longitudinal Study of Between-Person and Within-Person Intention-Behavior Relations. Ann Behav. Med. 2016, 50, 516–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jeffers, A.J.; Mason, T.B.; Benotsch, E.G. Psychological eating factors, affect, and ecological momentary assessed diet quality. Eat. Weight Disord. 2020, 25, 1151–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konig, L.M.; Koller, J.E.; Villinger, K.; Wahl, D.R.; Ziesemer, K.; Schupp, H.T.; Renner, B. Investigating the Relationship between Perceived Meal Colour Variety and Food Intake across Meal Types in a Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment. Nutrients 2021, 13, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langlet, B.; Maramis, C.; Diou, C.; Maglaveras, N.; Fagerberg, P.; Heimeier, R.; Lekka, I.; Delopoulos, A.; Ioakimidis, I. Formative Evaluation of a Smartphone App for Monitoring Daily Meal Distribution and Food Selection in Adolescents: Acceptability and Usability Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020, 8, e14778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laska, M.N.; Graham, D.; Moe, S.G.; Lytle, L.; Fulkerson, J. Situational characteristics of young adults’ eating occasions: A real-time data collection using Personal Digital Assistants. Public Health Nutr. 2011, 14, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, T.T.; Park, C.; Kapella, M.C.; Martyn-Nemeth, P.; Tussing-Humphreys, L.; Rospenda, K.M.; Zenk, S.N. Shift work relationships with same- and subsequent-day empty calorie food and beverage consumption. Scand J. Work Environ. Health 2020, 46, 579–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maher, J.P.; Harduk, M.; Hevel, D.J.; Adams, W.M.; McGuirt, J.T. Momentary Physical Activity Co-Occurs with Healthy and Unhealthy Dietary Intake in African American College Freshmen. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McNaughton, S.A.; Pendergast, F.J.; Worsley, A.; Leech, R.M. Eating occasion situational factors and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in young adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pendergast, F.J.; Ridgers, N.D.; Worsley, A.; McNaughton, S.A. Evaluation of a smartphone food diary application using objectively measured energy expenditure. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Munasinghe, S.; Sperandei, S.; Freebairn, L.; Conroy, E.; Jani, H.; Marjanovic, S.; Page, A. The Impact of Physical Distancing Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health and Well-Being Among Australian Adolescents. J. Adolesc Health 2020, 67, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pannicke, B.; Kaiser, T.; Reichenberger, J.; Blechert, J. Networks of stress, affect and eating behaviour: Anticipated stress coping predicts goal-congruent eating in young adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2021, 18, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reader, S.W.; Lopez, R.B.; Denny, B.T. Cognitive reappraisal of low-calorie food predicts real-world craving and consumption of high- and low-calorie foods in daily life. Appetite 2018, 131, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reichenberger, J.; Richard, A.; Smyth, J.M.; Fischer, D.; Pollatos, O.; Blechert, J. It’s craving time: Time of day effects on momentary hunger and food craving in daily life. Nutrition 2018, 55–56, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reichenberger, J.; Pannicke, B.; Arend, A.K.; Petrowski, K.; Blechert, J. Does stress eat away at you or make you eat? EMA measures of stress predict day to day food craving and perceived food intake as a function of trait stress-eating. Psychol. Health 2021, 36, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richard, A.; Meule, A.; Reichenberger, J.; Blechert, J. Food cravings in everyday life: An EMA study on snack-related thoughts, cravings, and consumption. Appetite 2017, 113, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richard, A.; Meule, A.; Blechert, J. Implicit evaluation of chocolate and motivational need states interact in predicting chocolate intake in everyday life. Eat. Behav. 2019, 33, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rodgers, R.F.; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M.; Holmes, M.; Skouteris, H.; Broadbent, J. When does behavior follow intent? Relationships between trait level dietary restraint and daily eating behaviors. Appetite 2018, 120, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schultchen, D.; Reichenberger, J.; Mittl, T.; Weh, T.R.M.; Smyth, J.M.; Blechert, J.; Pollatos, O. Bidirectional relationship of stress and affect with physical activity and healthy eating. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2019, 24, 315–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schuz, B.; Schuz, N.; Ferguson, S.G. It’s the power of food: Individual differences in food cue responsiveness and snacking in everyday life. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schuz, B.; Bower, J.; Ferguson, S.G. Stimulus control and affect in dietary behaviours. An intensive longitudinal study. Appetite 2015, 87, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Serafica, R.; Lukkahatai, N.; Morris, B.T.; Webber, K. The Use of Social Media and mEMA Technology in Comparing Compliance Rate Among Users. Asian Pac. Isl. Nurs. J. 2018, 3, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seto, E.; Hua, J.; Wu, L.; Shia, V.; Eom, S.; Wang, M.; Li, Y. Models of Individual Dietary Behavior Based on Smartphone Data: The Influence of Routine, Physical Activity, Emotion, and Food Environment. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strahler, J.; Nater, U.M. Differential effects of eating and drinking on wellbeing—An ecological ambulatory assessment study. Biol. Psychol. 2018, 131, 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strahler, J.; Nater, U.M.; Skoluda, N. Associations between Health Behaviors and Factors on Markers of Healthy Psychological and Physiological Functioning: A Daily Diary Study. Ann. Behav. Med. 2020, 54, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, J.G.; Doshi, S.; Crosby, R.D.; Lowe, M.R. Ecological momentary assessment of obesogenic eating behavior: Combining person-specific and environmental predictors. Obesity 2011, 19, 1574–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomiyama, A.J.; Mann, T.; Comer, L. Triggers of eating in everyday life. Appetite 2009, 52, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Villinger, K.; Wahl, D.R.; Schupp, H.T.; Renner, B. Memorable meals: The memory-experience gap in day-to-day experiences. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahl, D.R.; Villinger, K.; Konig, L.M.; Ziesemer, K.; Schupp, H.T.; Renner, B. Healthy food choices are happy food choices: Evidence from a real life sample using smartphone based assessments. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wahl, D.R.; Villinger, K.; Blumenschein, M.; Konig, L.M.; Ziesemer, K.; Sproesser, G.; Schupp, H.T.; Renner, B. Why we eat what we eat: Assessing dispositional and in-the-moment eating motives by using ecological momentary assessment. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020, 8, e13191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stone, A.A.P.; Shiffman, S.P. Capturing momentary, self-report data: A proposal for reporting guidelines. Ann. Behav. Med. 2002, 24, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, C.K.F.; Schneider, S.; Stone, A.A.; Spruijt-Metz, D. Compliance with Mobile Ecological Momentary Assessment Protocols in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, M.T.; Lewthwaite, H.; Fraysse, F.; Gajewska, A.; Ignatavicius, J.; Ferrar, K. Compliance with mobile ecological momentary assessment of self-reported health-related behaviors and psychological constructs in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e17023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heron, K.E.; Everhart, R.S.; McHale, S.M.; Smyth, J.M. Using Mobile-Technology-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) Methods with Youth: A Systematic Review and Recommendations. J. Pediatric Psychol. 2017, 42, 1087–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
The Preferred Reporting in Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram documenting the literature search process [17].
Figure 1.
The Preferred Reporting in Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram documenting the literature search process [17].
Table 1.
A sample search strategy from MEDLINE.
| # | Query | Results from 8 September 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Adolescent/ | 2,120,027 |
| 2 | Young Adult/ | 944,129 |
| 3 | Adult/ | 5,231,956 |
| 4 | Adolescen *.tw. | 303,187 |
| 5 | Teen *.tw. | 32,133 |
| 6 | Youth *.tw. | 82,599 |
| 7 | Adult *.tw. | 1,361,434 |
| 8 | Emerging adult *.tw. | 2964 |
| 9 | (Young adj2 (Adult * or person * or people * or wom#n or m#n or female * or male * or boy * or girl *)).tw. | 230,385 |
| 10 | 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 | 6,869,361 |
| 11 | Ecological Momentary Assessment/ | 938 |
| 12 | Mobile Applications/ | 8538 |
| 13 | Digital Technology/ | 268 |
| 14 | exp Computers, Handheld/ | 10,256 |
| 15 | EMA.tw. | 9726 |
| 16 | mEMA.tw. | 82 |
| 17 | ecological momentary assessment *.tw. | 2193 |
| 18 | ecological momentary intervention.tw. | 53 |
| 19 | mobile ecological momentary assessment *.tw. | 17 |
| 20 | mobile-based ecological momentary assessment *.tw. | 5 |
| 21 | ambulatory assessment *.tw. | 396 |
| 22 | experience sampl *.tw. | 1406 |
| 23 | real-time data.tw. | 1825 |
| 24 | ((food or diet) adj2 tracking).tw. | 122 |
| 25 | ((electronic or daily) adj1 diar *).tw. | 3463 |
| 26 | personal digital assistant *.tw. | 1012 |
| 27 | ((repeat * or real-time) adj2 sampling).tw. | 2049 |
| 28 | (within adj1 (person or subject *)).tw. | 18,788 |
| 29 | (between adj1 (person or subject *)).tw. | 21,215 |
| 30 | mobile health technolog *.tw. | 482 |
| 31 | ((mobile or smart or cell *) adj1 (device * or phone *)).tw. | 18,619 |
| 32 | 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 | 88,291 |
| 33 | Nutrition Assessment/ | 16,225 |
| 34 | exp Nutrition Surveys/ | 28,923 |
| 35 | Diet Records/ | 5873 |
| 36 | exp Beverages/ | 148,276 |
| 37 | exp Food/ | 1,355,200 |
| 38 | Nutrients/ | 3974 |
| 39 | exp Meals/ | 7032 |
| 40 | ((diet * or food * or nutr *) adj3 (knowledge or history or assessment * or record* or recall * or analysis or survey *)).tw. | 71,520 |
| 41 | (Nutrition * adj3 (chang * or intake * or quality or status or maintain * or maintenance or poor)).tw. | 56,659 |
| 42 | ((Intake * or consum *) adj3 (food * or drink * or beverage * or diet * or energy or nutrient *)).tw. | 190,164 |
| 43 | portion size *.tw. | 1740 |
| 44 | serving size *.tw. | 528 |
| 45 | 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 or 43 or 44 | 1,603,381 |
| 46 | Feeding Behavior/ | 87,461 |
| 47 | Health Behavior/ | 53,419 |
| 48 | Drinking Behavior/ | 6795 |
| 49 | Eating/ | 55,529 |
| 50 | Drinking/ | 14,497 |
| 51 | exp Life Style/ | 101,509 |
| 52 | Food Preferences/ | 15,330 |
| 53 | Diet, Reducing/ | 11,306 |
| 54 | Snack *.tw. | 8719 |
| 55 | (life style or lifestyle).tw. | 112,229 |
| 56 | food consumption behavio?r *.tw. | 111 |
| 57 | nutr * behavio?r *.tw. | 1102 |
| 58 | eat *.tw. | 107,019 |
| 59 | drink *.tw. | 149,261 |
| 60 | (Meal * adj3 (skip * or miss * or pattern * or tim *)).tw. | 4663 |
| 61 | (Eat * adj3 (habit * or pattern * or behavio?r *)).tw. | 22,876 |
| 62 | (Food * adj3 (content or habit * or quality or choice *)).tw. | 21,264 |
| 63 | (Diet * adj3 (habit * or pattern * or practice * or chang * or quality or behavio?r *)).tw. | 57,954 |
| 64 | 46 or 47 or 48 or 49 or 50 or 51 or 52 or 53 or 54 or 55 or 56 or 57 or 58 or 59 or 60 or 61 or 62 or 63 | 621,175 |
| 65 | Work/ | 20,184 |
| 66 | Schools/ | 43,223 |
| 67 | Universities/ | 45,308 |
| 68 | Restaurants/ | 4129 |
| 69 | supermarkets/ | 123 |
| 70 | exp Marketing/ | 36,116 |
| 71 | Social Media/ | 11,151 |
| 72 | exp Mass Media/ | 46,714 |
| 73 | Workplace/ | 25,661 |
| 74 | Fast foods/ | 2490 |
| 75 | Food dispensers, automatic/ | 355 |
| 76 | Weather/ | 10,893 |
| 77 | Income/ | 31,348 |
| 78 | convenience.tw. | 44,499 |
| 79 | home.tw. | 242,032 |
| 80 | fast food outlet *.tw. | 255 |
| 81 | supermarket *.tw. | 3978 |
| 82 | ((grocery or convenience) adj1 store *).tw. | 2048 |
| 83 | (food adj1 (court * or outlet * or price *)).tw. | 1409 |
| 84 | (fast food * or fastfood *).tw. | 3888 |
| 85 | restaurant *.tw. | 6136 |
| 86 | cafe *.tw. | 5430 |
| 87 | (take away or takeaway).tw. | 774 |
| 88 | (take out or takeout).tw. | 399 |
| 89 | (pub or pubs).tw. | 2634 |
| 90 | public bar *.tw. | 33 |
| 91 | (club or clubs).tw. | 15,181 |
| 92 | (work place * or workplace *).tw. | 47,820 |
| 93 | vending machine *.tw. | 644 |
| 94 | street food *.tw. | 229 |
| 95 | ((food * or eat *) adj3 (away or out or outside)).tw. | 2746 |
| 96 | cost of food.tw. | 260 |
| 97 | time constraint *.tw. | 4603 |
| 98 | (food adj3 market *).tw. | 2071 |
| 99 | 65 or 66 or 67 or 68 or 69 or 70 or 71 or 72 or 73 or 74 or 75 or 76 or 77 or 78 or 79 or 80 or 81 or 82 or 83 or 84 or 85 or 86 or 87 or 88 or 89 or 90 or 91 or 92 or 93 or 94 or 95 or 96 or 97 or 98 | 611,229 |
| 100 | exp Peer Group/ | 22,672 |
| 101 | Friends/ | 5806 |
| 102 | Family/ | 79,729 |
| 103 | Parents/ | 69,812 |
| 104 | Siblings/ | 12,134 |
| 105 | Culture/ | 33,720 |
| 106 | Religion/ | 15,004 |
| 107 | Unemployment/ | 7352 |
| 108 | Employment/ | 47,868 |
| 109 | cultural diversity/ | 12,115 |
| 110 | colleague *.tw. | 36,918 |
| 111 | peer pressure *.tw. | 1285 |
| 112 | (social adj3 (value * or desirabilit * or norm * or interaction * or support or setting * or context *)).tw. | 99,210 |
| 113 | (ethnic * adj1 (group * or value *)).tw. | 35,437 |
| 114 | 100 or 101 or 102 or 103 or 104 or 105 or 106 or 107 or 108 or 109 or 110 or 111 or 112 or 113 | 443,731 |
| 115 | exp Emotions/ | 267,374 |
| 116 | Attitude/ | 49,588 |
| 117 | Cognition/ | 108,153 |
| 118 | exp Stress, Psychological/ | 141,385 |
| 119 | exp Body Image/ | 18,464 |
| 120 | mood.tw. | 79,081 |
| 121 | affect regulation.tw. | 1169 |
| 122 | belief *.tw. | 90,267 |
| 123 | (self adj1 (control or regulation or esteem)).tw. | 37,252 |
| 124 | stigma.tw. | 27,112 |
| 125 | 115 or 116 or 117 or 118 or 119 or 120 or 121 or 122 or 123 or 124 | 715,144 |
| 126 | Hunger/ | 5674 |
| 127 | Satiety Response/ | 2538 |
| 128 | Smell/ | 16,755 |
| 129 | Taste/ | 24,034 |
| 130 | Vision, Ocular/ | 25,841 |
| 131 | Hormones/ | 37,194 |
| 132 | Craving/ | 1789 |
| 133 | Thirst/ | 3306 |
| 134 | Appetite/ | 8199 |
| 135 | texture.tw. | 32,181 |
| 136 | sensory.tw. | 191,635 |
| 137 | flavo?r.tw. | 16,962 |
| 138 | palatab *.tw. | 7764 |
| 139 | taste sensitivit *.tw. | 821 |
| 140 | visual * appeal *.tw. | 285 |
| 141 | 126 or 127 or 128 or 129 or 130 or 131 or 132 or 133 or 134 or 135 or 136 or 137 or 138 or 139 or 140 | 344,364 |
| 142 | Food Security/ | 189 |
| 143 | Food Insecurity/ | 462 |
| 144 | food availabilit*.tw. | 4141 |
| 145 | food accessibilit *.tw. | 110 |
| 146 | 142 or 143 or 144 or 145 | 4859 |
| 147 | 64 or 99 or 114 or 125 or 141 or 146 | 2,391,555 |
| 148 | 10 and 32 and 45 and 147 | 1589 |
| 149 | limit 148 to (English language and humans and yr = “2008–Current”) | 1129 |
Table 2.
Summary of methodological features of mobile-based ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) studies in young people. The Table was modified from Liao et al. ‘Adapted STROBE Checklist for Reporting EMA Studies (CREMAS) [5]’ and ‘Table 1 Data Extraction Scheme’ from Degroote et al. [10].
| Study Design | Cross-Sectional Study n (%) | 37 (95%) |
| Cohort study n (%) | 3 (5%) | |
| EMA sampling approach | Signal-contingent n (%) | 27 (69.25%) |
| Event-contingent (self-initiated) n (%) | 7 (18%) | |
| Event-contingent (device-initiated) n (%) | 0 | |
| Event-contingent (self-initiated and device-initiated) n (%) | 1 (2.5%) | |
| Signal-contingent and event-contingent (self-initiated) n (%) | 4 (10.25%) | |
| Delivery mode | Smartphone app n (%) | 26 (67%) |
| Personal digital assistant n (%) | 3 (8%) | |
| Palmtop computer n (%) | 1 (2.5%) | |
| iPod Touch n (%) | 1 (2.5%) | |
| 1 (2.5%) | ||
| Automated SMS link to online survey n (%) | 6 (15%) | |
| Email or automated SMS link to online survey n (%) | 1 (2.5%) | |
| Monitoring period | < 4 days n (%) | 2 (5%) |
| 4–7 days n (%) | 20 (51%) | |
| 8–14 days n (%) | 13 (33%) | |
| 15–21 days n (%) | 1 (2.5%) | |
| >1 month n (%) | 3 (7.7%) | |
| Prompt frequency (times/day) | <4 n (%) | 2 (5%) |
| 4–6 n (%) | 23 (59%) | |
| >6 n (%) | 6 (15%) | |
| N/A n (%) | 8 (21%) | |
| Prompt interval | Fixed n (%) | 18 (46%) |
| Random n (%) | 13 (33%) | |
| N/A n (%) | 8 (21%) | |
| Reminders sent | Yes n (%) | 18 (46%) |
| Not reported n (%) | 21 (54%) |
Table 3.
Feasibility of mobile-based ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) for signal-contingent and event-contingent sampling approaches in young people. The table was modified from Liao et al. ‘Adapted STROBE Checklist for Reporting EMA Studies (CREMAS)’ [5] and ‘Table 1 Data Extraction Scheme’ from Degroote et al. [10].
Table 3.
Feasibility of mobile-based ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) for signal-contingent and event-contingent sampling approaches in young people. The table was modified from Liao et al. ‘Adapted STROBE Checklist for Reporting EMA Studies (CREMAS)’ [5] and ‘Table 1 Data Extraction Scheme’ from Degroote et al. [10].
| First Author, Publication Year, Country | EMA Sampling Approach | Monitoring Period, Prompt Frequency (Per Day), Prompt Interval | Feasibility | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Rate | Factors Influencing Response Rate | |||
| Ashurst et al., 2018 [24], Bruening et al., 2016 [25], Bruening et al., 2016, USA [8] | Signal-contingent |
| 74% completed at least one mEMA survey. | Males were less likely than females to complete mEMAs (p < 0.001). Prompts sent in the morning and on the weekend had lower response rates. |
| Berkman et al., 2014, USA [26] | Signal-contingent |
| 96% (text messaging group only). | The text group responded at significantly more of the target times than the paper EMA group (paper: M = 70% valid response rate vs. text M = 96%, p < 0.001). |
| Borgogna et al., 2015. [27], Doan et al., 2021, Grenard et al. [28], 2013, USA [29] | Signal-contingent and event-contingent (self-initiated) |
| 71% of the random prompts and 95% of the scheduled evening reports. | NR |
| Cerrada et al., 2016, USA [30] | Signal-contingent and event-contingent (self-initiated) |
| 78% | Less likely to respond to prompts on weekend days relative to weekdays (p < 0.001). |
| Chmurzyńska et al., 2018 [31], Chmurzyńska et al., 2021, Poland [32] | Signal-contingent |
| Validation study only: 84% replied to at least three prompts on at least five days. | There was no difference in the response rate between normal weight and overweight/obese individuals. |
| Comulada et al., 2018 [33], Swendeman et al., 2018, USA [34] | Signal-contingent |
| 74% of the total number of days over which participants were followed. | mEMA was more likely to be filled out in the morning and decreased as the day went on (all p < 0.01). Lower adherence was found on the weekends (p < 0.01). |
| Cummings et al., 2019, USA [35] | Signal-contingent |
| 83% of the daily prompts answered. | NR |
| Finkelstein-Fox et al., 2020, USA [36] | Signal-contingent |
| 89% | NR |
| Hofmann et al., 2014, Germany [37] | Signal-contingent |
| 92% A small fraction (0.3%) of signals was only partially completed. The remaining 7.5% of signals were not responded to at all. | NR |
| Holmes et al., 2014, Australia [38] | Signal-contingent |
| NR | NR |
| Inauen et al., 2016, Germany [39] | Signal-contingent |
| 91% | NR |
| Jeffers et al., 2020, USA [40] | Signal-contingent |
| 86% Total mean number of prompts responded to was 30.6 and 5.1 prompts per day. | NR |
| Konig et al., 2021, Germany [41] | Event-contingent, self-initiated |
| NR | NR |
| Langlet et al., 2020, Sweden [42] | Event-contingent, self-initiated and device-initiated |
| 73% (on average, recorded 2.2 out of 3 main meals/day). | There was an increase in reporting frequency from 70% to 76% of the 3 expected main meals per day from week one to week two. |
| Laska et al., 2011, USA [43] | Event-contingent, self-initiated |
| NR | NR |
| Lin et al., 2020, Taiwan [44] | Signal-contingent |
| 57% Mean number of days with mEMA surveys: 12.5. Mean number of completed surveys per person-day: 2.5. | The length of mEMA period (14 days) may have increased burden and resulted in low response rates. |
| Maher et al., 2020, USA [45] | Signal-contingent |
| 85% | EMA compliance did not differ by time of day, day of week, number of steps taken in the two hours prior to the EMA prompt, sex, or BMI (p > 0.05). |
| McNaughton et al., 2020 [46], Pendergast et al., 2017, Australia [47] | Event-contingent, self-initiated |
| 88% of participants completed at least one EMA entry on one allocated recording day in the FoodNow app. | NR |
| Munasinghe et al., 2020, Australia [48] | Signal-contingent |
| 45% completed one or more EMAs, and <1% completed all 96 EMAs over the follow-up period. | NR |
| Pannicke et al., 2021, Austria [49] and Germany | Signal-contingent |
| 85% | NR |
| Reader et al., 2018, USA [50] | Signal-contingent |
| 58% | NR |
| Reichenberger et al., 2018, Austria and Germany [51] Study 1 | Signal-contingent |
| 87% for signal-contingent. NR for event-contingent. | NR |
| Reichenberger et al., 2018, Austria and Germany [51] Study 3 | Signal-contingent |
| 85% of daily signals. | NR |
| Reichenberger et al., 2021, Austria and Germany [52] Study 1 | Signal- and event-contingent, self-initiated |
| 86% of intraday signals. | NR |
| Reichenberger et al., 2021, Austria and Germany [52] Study 2 | Signal-contingent |
| 85% of intraday signals. | NR |
| Richard et al., 2017, Austria [53] | Signal-contingent |
| 88% of all possible EMA prompts were answered. | NR |
| Richard et al., 2019, Austria [54] | Signal-contingent |
| 91% of EMA prompts were answered. | NR |
| Rodgers et al., 2018, Australia [55] | Signal-contingent |
| Average number of surveys completed: 41.5. | No associations with age (p = 0.99), BMI (p = 0.21), intentions (p = 0.20), behaviours (p = 0.48), education (p = 0.75), employment (p = 0.26), living status (p = 0.70), or relationship status (p = 0.92). |
| Schultchen et al., 2019, Austria and Germany [56] | Signal-contingent |
| On average, 84% of prompted signals were completed. | NR |
| Schuz et al., 2015 [57], Schuz et al., 2015, Australia [58] | Signal-contingent and event-contingent, self-initiated |
| 90% of snack reports completed. | NR |
| Serafica et al., 2018, USA [59] | Event-contingent, self-initiated |
| Mean compliance of 54% across 6 days. | NR |
| Seto et al., 2016, China [60] | Signal-contingent |
| Ample compliance. | NR |
| Spook et al., 2013, Netherlands [9] | Signal-contingent |
| Compliance declined 46% over study period, self-reported compliance indicated a smaller decrease in compliance (29%). | No time of day differences between morning, early afternoon, late afternoon, early evening and late evening. |
| Strahler et al., 2018 [61], Strahler et al., 2020, Germany [62] | Signal-contingent |
| 98% | No statistically significant day effect in food/drink consumption (all p > 0.06) and subjective states (all p > 0.43). |
| Thomas et al., 2011, USA [63] | Signal-contingent |
| 71% of EMA prompts. | No associations with time of day or number of EMA days. |
| Tomiyama et al., 2009, USA [64] | Signal-contingent |
| On average, 118 participants completed 2834 diary observations for an average of 24 hourly entries each. | NR |
| Villinger et al., 2021, Germany [65] | Event-contingent, self-initiated |
| NR For high compliance and support data collection, individuals selected their own two reminders (morning and evening) | NR |
| Wahl et al., 2017, Germany [66] | Event-contingent, self-initiated |
| Satisfactory compliance rate (M = 3.4 meals or snacks/day). No selective reporting of certain food items. | NR |
| Wahl et al., 2020, Germany [67] | Event-contingent, self-initiated |
| NR | NR |
App = smartphone application, NR = not reported, N/A = not applicable, mERA = mHealth evidence reporting and assessment checklist, mHealth = mobile health, mEMA = mobile-based ecological momentary assessment, PDA = personal digital assistant. Note: Articles reporting on the same data set or sample were merged and presented in this Table as an independent study (n = 39).
Table 4.
Quality assessment of eligible mobile-based ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) studies (n = 39) in young adults using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for analytical cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort studies [22]. Adapted based on the quality assessment table presented in Shi, Davies and Allman-Farinelli [23].
Table 4.
Quality assessment of eligible mobile-based ecological momentary assessment (mEMA) studies (n = 39) in young adults using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for analytical cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort studies [22]. Adapted based on the quality assessment table presented in Shi, Davies and Allman-Farinelli [23].
| First Author, Publication Year, Country | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-sectional studies | ||||||||||||
| Berkman et al., 2014, USA [28] | No | Yes | Unclear | N/A | No | N/A | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Borgogna et al., 2015 [29], Doan et al., 2021 [30], Grenard et al., 2013, USA [31] | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Cerrada et al., 2016, USA [32] | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Chmurzynska et al., 2018 [33], Chmurzynska et al., 2021, Poland [34] | Unclear | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Comulada et al., 2018 [35], Swendeman et al., 2018, USA [36] | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Cummings et al., 2019, USA [37] | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Good |
| Finkelstein-Fox et al., 2020, USA [38] | No | Yes | Yes | N/A | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Holmes et al., 2014, Australia [40] | No | Yes | Yes | N/A | No | N/A | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Inauen et al., 2016, Germany [41] | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Jeffers et al., 2020, USA [42] | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | N/A | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Konig et al., 2021, Germany [43] | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | N/A | No | N/A | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Langlet et al., 2020, Sweden [44] | No | Unclear | Unclear | N/A | No | N/A | Unclear | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Laska et al., 2011, USA [45] | No | Yes | Unclear | N/A | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Lin et al., 2020, Taiwan [46] | Yes | Yes | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Maher et al., 2020, USA [47] | Yes | Yes | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| McNaughton et al., 2020 [48], Pendergast et al., 2017, Australia [49] | No | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Pannicke et al., 2021, Austria and Germany [51] | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | N/A | No | N/A | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Reader et al., 2018, USA [52] | No | Unclear | Yes | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Reichenberger et al., 2018, Austria and Germany [53] (Study 1) | No | Unclear | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Reichenberger et al., 2018, Austria and Germany [53] (Study 3) | No | Unclear | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Reichenberger et al., 2021, Austria and Germany [54] (Study 1) | Unclear | Yes | Yes | N/A | No | N/A | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Reichenberger et al., 2021, Austria and Germany [54] (Study 2) | Unclear | Yes | Yes | N/A | No | N/A | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Richard et al., 2017, Austria [55] | Unclear | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Richard et al., 2019, Austria [56] | No | Unclear | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Rodgers et al., 2018, Australia [57] | No | Unclear | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Schultchen et al., 2019, Austria and Germany [58] | No | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Schuz et al., 2015 [59], Schuz et al., 2015, Australia [60] | Yes | Yes | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Serafica et al., 2018, USA [61] | No | Unclear | Unclear | N/A | No | N/A | Unclear | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Seto et al., 2016, China [62] | No | Unclear | Unclear | N/A | No | N/A | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Spook et al., 2013, The Netherlands [9] | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | N/A | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Strahler et al., 2018 [63], Strahler et al., 2020, Germany [64] | Yes | Yes | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Thomas et al., 2011, USA [65] | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Fair |
| Tomiyama et al., 2009, USA [66] | No | Unclear | Unclear | N/A | No | N/A | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Villinger et al., 2021, Germany [67] | No | Yes | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Wahl et al., 2017, Germany [68] | No | Yes | Unclear | N/A | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes * | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Wahl et al., 2020, Germany [69] | No | Yes | Yes | N/A | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Cohort Studies | ||||||||||||
| Ashurst et al., 2018 [26], Bruening et al., 2016 [27], Bruening et al., 2016, USA [8] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | No | N/A | N/A | Yes | Fair |
| Hofmann et al., 2014, Germany [39] | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | Unclear | Yes | No | No | Yes | Poor |
| Munasinghe et al., 2020, Australia [50] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | N/A | Yes | Yes | Yes | NR | Yes | Fair |
Overall quality rating of each study: poor as 3 or more ‘no’ or ‘unclear’, fair as 1 to 2 ‘no’ or ‘unclear’ and good as only ‘yes’ or ‘not applicable (N/A)’ responses. * A cross-sectional study that used logistic regression/inferential statistics. Caution is needed when interpreting associations. N/A = not applicable; NR = not reported. Question 4 is N/A for all 39 independent studies because this review did not target individuals from a clinical population. Note: Articles reporting on the same data set or sample were merged and presented in this Table as an independent study (n = 39).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Battaglia, B.; Lee, L.; Jia, S.S.; Partridge, S.R.; Allman-Farinelli, M. The Use of Mobile-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA) Methodology to Assess Dietary Intake, Food Consumption Behaviours and Context in Young People: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1329. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071329
AMA Style
Battaglia B, Lee L, Jia SS, Partridge SR, Allman-Farinelli M. The Use of Mobile-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA) Methodology to Assess Dietary Intake, Food Consumption Behaviours and Context in Young People: A Systematic Review. Healthcare. 2022; 10(7):1329. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071329
Chicago/Turabian StyleBattaglia, Brigitte, Lydia Lee, Si Si Jia, Stephanie Ruth Partridge, and Margaret Allman-Farinelli. 2022. "The Use of Mobile-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA) Methodology to Assess Dietary Intake, Food Consumption Behaviours and Context in Young People: A Systematic Review" Healthcare 10, no. 7: 1329. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071329
APA StyleBattaglia, B., Lee, L., Jia, S. S., Partridge, S. R., & Allman-Farinelli, M. (2022). The Use of Mobile-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA) Methodology to Assess Dietary Intake, Food Consumption Behaviours and Context in Young People: A Systematic Review. Healthcare, 10(7), 1329. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071329
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
