Practitioner and researcher perspectives on the utility of ecological momentary assessment in mental health care: A survey study

M. Piot; M. Mestdagh; H. Riese; J. Weermeijer; J.M.A. Brouwer; P. Kuppens; E. Dejonckheere; F.M. Bos

doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100575

Practitioner and researcher perspectives on the utility of ecological momentary assessment in mental health care: A survey study

M. Piot, M. Mestdagh, H. Riese, J. Weermeijer, J.M.A. Brouwer, P. Kuppens, E. Dejonckheere, F.M. Bos

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)

94 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a scientific self-monitoring method to capture individuals' daily life experiences. Early on, EMA has been suggested to have the potential to improve mental health care. However, it remains unclear if and how EMA should be implemented. This requires an in-depth
investigation of how practitioners and researchers view the implementation of EMA.

Objective
Explore the perspectives of mental health practitioners and EMA researchers on the utility of EMA for mental health care.

Methods
Practitioners (n = 89; psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses) and EMA researchers (n = 62) completed a survey about EMA in clinical practice. This survey addressed EMA goals for practitioner and patient, requirements regarding clinical use of EMA, and (dis)advantages of EMA compared to treatment-as-usual. t-Tests were used to determine agreement with each statement and whether practitioners' and researchers' views differed significantly. Linear regression was used to explore predictors of goals and preferences (e.g., EMA
experience).

Results
Practitioners and researchers considered EMA to be a useful clinical tool for diverse stages of care. They indicated EMA to be most useful for gaining insight into the context specificity of symptoms (55.0 %), whereas receiving alerts when symptoms increase was rated the least useful (11.3 %, alerts is in 95 % of bootstrap iterations between rank 8 and 10). Compared to treatment-as-usual, EMA was considered easier to use (M = 4.87, t = 5.30, p < .001) and interpret (M = 4.52, t = 3.61, p < .001), but also more burdensome for the patient (M =
4.48, t = 3.17, p < .001). Although participants preferred personalization of the EMA diary, they also suggested that EMA should cost practitioners and patients limited time. The preference for creating personalized EMA was related to the level of experience with EMA. Finally, they highlighted the need for practitioner training and patient full-time access to the EMA feedback.

Conclusions
This survey study demonstrated that practitioners and researchers expect EMA to have added value for mental health care. Concrete recommendations for implementation of EMA are formulated. This may inform the development of specific clinical applications and user-friendly EMA software.

Original language	English
Article number	100575
Number of pages	8
Journal	Internet Interventions
Volume	30
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100575
Publication status	Published - 2022

Keywords

BIPOLAR DISORDER
Blended care
Clinical implementation
DEPRESSION
EXPERIENCE SAMPLING METHOD
Ecological momentary assessment
Experience sampling
LIFE
Personalized psychiatry
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL
e-Health

Access to Document

10.1016/j.invent.2022.100575Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

MCP Dejonckheere practitioner and researcher perspectives on the utility of ecological momentary assessment II 2022Final published version, 885 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{30b56ecbdedb4ca89095b0c5749477ee,

title = "Practitioner and researcher perspectives on the utility of ecological momentary assessment in mental health care: A survey study",

abstract = "BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a scientific self-monitoring method to capture individuals' daily life experiences. Early on, EMA has been suggested to have the potential to improve mental health care. However, it remains unclear if and how EMA should be implemented. This requires an in-depth investigation of how practitioners and researchers view the implementation of EMA. ObjectiveExplore the perspectives of mental health practitioners and EMA researchers on the utility of EMA for mental health care. MethodsPractitioners (n = 89; psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses) and EMA researchers (n = 62) completed a survey about EMA in clinical practice. This survey addressed EMA goals for practitioner and patient, requirements regarding clinical use of EMA, and (dis)advantages of EMA compared to treatment-as-usual. t-Tests were used to determine agreement with each statement and whether practitioners' and researchers' views differed significantly. Linear regression was used to explore predictors of goals and preferences (e.g., EMA experience). ResultsPractitioners and researchers considered EMA to be a useful clinical tool for diverse stages of care. They indicated EMA to be most useful for gaining insight into the context specificity of symptoms (55.0 %), whereas receiving alerts when symptoms increase was rated the least useful (11.3 %, alerts is in 95 % of bootstrap iterations between rank 8 and 10). Compared to treatment-as-usual, EMA was considered easier to use (M = 4.87, t = 5.30, p < .001) and interpret (M = 4.52, t = 3.61, p < .001), but also more burdensome for the patient (M =4.48, t = 3.17, p < .001). Although participants preferred personalization of the EMA diary, they also suggested that EMA should cost practitioners and patients limited time. The preference for creating personalized EMA was related to the level of experience with EMA. Finally, they highlighted the need for practitioner training and patient full-time access to the EMA feedback. ConclusionsThis survey study demonstrated that practitioners and researchers expect EMA to have added value for mental health care. Concrete recommendations for implementation of EMA are formulated. This may inform the development of specific clinical applications and user-friendly EMA software. ",

keywords = "BIPOLAR DISORDER, Blended care, Clinical implementation, DEPRESSION, EXPERIENCE SAMPLING METHOD, Ecological momentary assessment, Experience sampling, LIFE, Personalized psychiatry, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL, e-Health",

author = "M. Piot and M. Mestdagh and H. Riese and J. Weermeijer and J.M.A. Brouwer and P. Kuppens and E. Dejonckheere and F.M. Bos",

note = "Funding Information: This study was financially supported by Innovation Fund “Stichting De Friesland” (grant no. DS81 awarded to Dr. Riese and prof. Dr. Wichers), the charitable foundation “Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ” (grant no. 239 awarded to Dr. Riese and Dr. Bastiaansen), the “KU Leuven technology transfer grant” (C3/3H200318 awarded to Dr. Mestdagh and Dr. Kuppens), and the “KU Leuven research council grant” (C14/19/054 awarded to Dr. Kuppens). Dr. Mestdagh and Dr. Dejonckheere are post-doctoral research fellows supported by the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders (FWO; grant no.'s 1256221N and 1210621N). ",

year = "2022",

doi = "10.1016/j.invent.2022.100575",

language = "English",

volume = "30",

journal = "Internet Interventions",

issn = "2214-7829",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Practitioner and researcher perspectives on the utility of ecological momentary assessment in mental health care

T2 - A survey study

AU - Piot, M.

AU - Mestdagh, M.

AU - Riese, H.

AU - Weermeijer, J.

AU - Brouwer, J.M.A.

AU - Kuppens, P.

AU - Dejonckheere, E.

AU - Bos, F.M.

N1 - Funding Information: This study was financially supported by Innovation Fund “Stichting De Friesland” (grant no. DS81 awarded to Dr. Riese and prof. Dr. Wichers), the charitable foundation “Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ” (grant no. 239 awarded to Dr. Riese and Dr. Bastiaansen), the “KU Leuven technology transfer grant” (C3/3H200318 awarded to Dr. Mestdagh and Dr. Kuppens), and the “KU Leuven research council grant” (C14/19/054 awarded to Dr. Kuppens). Dr. Mestdagh and Dr. Dejonckheere are post-doctoral research fellows supported by the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders (FWO; grant no.'s 1256221N and 1210621N).

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a scientific self-monitoring method to capture individuals' daily life experiences. Early on, EMA has been suggested to have the potential to improve mental health care. However, it remains unclear if and how EMA should be implemented. This requires an in-depth investigation of how practitioners and researchers view the implementation of EMA. ObjectiveExplore the perspectives of mental health practitioners and EMA researchers on the utility of EMA for mental health care. MethodsPractitioners (n = 89; psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses) and EMA researchers (n = 62) completed a survey about EMA in clinical practice. This survey addressed EMA goals for practitioner and patient, requirements regarding clinical use of EMA, and (dis)advantages of EMA compared to treatment-as-usual. t-Tests were used to determine agreement with each statement and whether practitioners' and researchers' views differed significantly. Linear regression was used to explore predictors of goals and preferences (e.g., EMA experience). ResultsPractitioners and researchers considered EMA to be a useful clinical tool for diverse stages of care. They indicated EMA to be most useful for gaining insight into the context specificity of symptoms (55.0 %), whereas receiving alerts when symptoms increase was rated the least useful (11.3 %, alerts is in 95 % of bootstrap iterations between rank 8 and 10). Compared to treatment-as-usual, EMA was considered easier to use (M = 4.87, t = 5.30, p < .001) and interpret (M = 4.52, t = 3.61, p < .001), but also more burdensome for the patient (M =4.48, t = 3.17, p < .001). Although participants preferred personalization of the EMA diary, they also suggested that EMA should cost practitioners and patients limited time. The preference for creating personalized EMA was related to the level of experience with EMA. Finally, they highlighted the need for practitioner training and patient full-time access to the EMA feedback. ConclusionsThis survey study demonstrated that practitioners and researchers expect EMA to have added value for mental health care. Concrete recommendations for implementation of EMA are formulated. This may inform the development of specific clinical applications and user-friendly EMA software.

AB - BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a scientific self-monitoring method to capture individuals' daily life experiences. Early on, EMA has been suggested to have the potential to improve mental health care. However, it remains unclear if and how EMA should be implemented. This requires an in-depth investigation of how practitioners and researchers view the implementation of EMA. ObjectiveExplore the perspectives of mental health practitioners and EMA researchers on the utility of EMA for mental health care. MethodsPractitioners (n = 89; psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses) and EMA researchers (n = 62) completed a survey about EMA in clinical practice. This survey addressed EMA goals for practitioner and patient, requirements regarding clinical use of EMA, and (dis)advantages of EMA compared to treatment-as-usual. t-Tests were used to determine agreement with each statement and whether practitioners' and researchers' views differed significantly. Linear regression was used to explore predictors of goals and preferences (e.g., EMA experience). ResultsPractitioners and researchers considered EMA to be a useful clinical tool for diverse stages of care. They indicated EMA to be most useful for gaining insight into the context specificity of symptoms (55.0 %), whereas receiving alerts when symptoms increase was rated the least useful (11.3 %, alerts is in 95 % of bootstrap iterations between rank 8 and 10). Compared to treatment-as-usual, EMA was considered easier to use (M = 4.87, t = 5.30, p < .001) and interpret (M = 4.52, t = 3.61, p < .001), but also more burdensome for the patient (M =4.48, t = 3.17, p < .001). Although participants preferred personalization of the EMA diary, they also suggested that EMA should cost practitioners and patients limited time. The preference for creating personalized EMA was related to the level of experience with EMA. Finally, they highlighted the need for practitioner training and patient full-time access to the EMA feedback. ConclusionsThis survey study demonstrated that practitioners and researchers expect EMA to have added value for mental health care. Concrete recommendations for implementation of EMA are formulated. This may inform the development of specific clinical applications and user-friendly EMA software.

KW - BIPOLAR DISORDER

KW - Blended care

KW - Clinical implementation

KW - DEPRESSION

KW - EXPERIENCE SAMPLING METHOD

KW - Ecological momentary assessment

KW - Experience sampling

KW - LIFE

KW - Personalized psychiatry

KW - RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL

KW - e-Health

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139280171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.invent.2022.100575

DO - 10.1016/j.invent.2022.100575

M3 - Article

SN - 2214-7829

VL - 30

JO - Internet Interventions

JF - Internet Interventions

M1 - 100575

ER -

Practitioner and researcher perspectives on the utility of ecological momentary assessment in mental health care: A survey study

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this