Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38898412›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Working mechanisms of the use and acceptability of ecological momentary interventions: a realist evaluation of a guided self-help ecological momentary intervention targeting self-esteem.

Mary Rose Postma, Suzanne Vrancken, Maud Daemen, Iris Hoes-van der Meulen, Nele Volbragt, Philippe Delespaul, Lieuwe de Haan, Marieke van der Pluijm, Josefien Johanna Froukje Breedvelt, Mark van der Gaag and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Mary Rose PostmaDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Vijverdalseweg 1, Maastricht, 6226 NB, the Netherlands. maryrose.postma@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Suzanne VranckenMondriaan Mental Health Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Maud DaemenDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Vijverdalseweg 1, Maastricht, 6226 NB, the Netherlands.
Iris Hoes-van der MeulenProdeba Mental Health Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Nele VolbragtDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Vijverdalseweg 1, Maastricht, 6226 NB, the Netherlands.
Philippe DelespaulDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Vijverdalseweg 1, Maastricht, 6226 NB, the Netherlands.
Lieuwe de HaanDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marieke van der PluijmDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Josefien Johanna Froukje BreedveltDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, London, UK.
Mark van der GaagDepartment of Clinical Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ramon LindauerDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, location Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
David van den BergDepartment of Clinical Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Claudi BocktingDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Therese van AmelsvoortDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Vijverdalseweg 1, Maastricht, 6226 NB, the Netherlands.
Matthias SchwannauerSchool of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lawrence DoiSchool of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ulrich ReininghausDepartment of Public Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Central Institute of Mental Health, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

German Research Foundation grant no. 389624707 to U.R.ZonMw research program grant for the SELFIE trial grant no. 636310006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnology improves accessibility of psychological interventions for youth. An ecological momentary intervention (EMI) is a digital intervention geared toward intervening in daily life to enhance the generalizability and ecological validity, and to be able to intervene in moments most needed. Identifying working mechanisms of the use of ecological momentary interventions might generate insights to improve interventions.

methodsThe present study investigates the working mechanisms of the use and acceptability of an ecological momentary intervention, named SELFIE, targeting self-esteem in youth exposed to childhood trauma, and evaluates under what circumstances these mechanisms of use and acceptability do or do not come into play. A realist evaluation approach was used for developing initial program theories (data: expert interviews and a stakeholders focus group), and subsequently testing (data: 15 interviews with participants, a focus group with therapists, debriefing questionnaire), and refining them.

resultsThe SELFIE intervention is offered through a smartphone application enabling constant availability of the intervention and thereby increasing accessibility and feasibility. When the intervention was offered on their personal smartphone, this enhanced a sense of privacy and less hesitance in engaging with the app, leading to increased disclosure and active participation. Further, the smartphone application facilitates the practice of skills in daily life, supporting the repeated practice of exercises in different situations leading to the generalizability of the effect. Buffering against technical malfunction seemed important to decrease its possible negative effects.

conclusionsThis study enhanced our understanding of possible working mechanisms in EMIs, such as the constant availability supporting increased accessibility and feasibility, for which the use of the personal smartphone was experienced as a facilitating context. Hereby, the current study contributes to relatively limited research in this field. For the field to move forward, mechanisms of use, and acceptability of EMIs need to be understood. It is strongly recommended that alongside efficacy trials of an EMI on specific target mechanisms, a process evaluation is conducted investigating the working mechanisms of use.

trial registrationThe current paper reports on a realist evaluation within the SELFIE trial (Netherlands Trial Register NL7129 (NTR7475)).

Indexed as

Ecological Momentary AssessmentFocus GroupsSelf ConceptAdolescentFemaleHumansMaleMobile ApplicationsPatient Acceptance of Health CareSmartphoneEcological momentary interventionSelf-esteemTarget mechanismWorking mechanism

Identifiers

PMID38898412
PMCPMC11186172

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.