Trial reportBritish journal of health psychology2026
The same, only different: Smartphone-based dietary Ecological Momentary Assessment tools vary in complexity, usability and active information processing.
Trial report in British journal of health psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The same, only different: Smartphone-based dietary Ecological Momentary Assessment tools vary in complexity, usability and active information processing.British journal of health psychology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEcological Momentary Assessment (EMA) is popular for assessing dietary intake in real life and real time. Available tools differ substantially in the type and number of implemented features, including features to assess what and how much was consumed. These features require qualitatively different input that might have a differential impact on the participants' cognitions and behaviours while taking part in the study. This study aimed to test whether more complex dietary assessment tools, indicated by the type and number of assessment features, induce more active information processing (AIP).
designPreregistered online between-subjects experimental study.
methodsA total of 373 participants (65.4% female; mean age 30.4 years) were randomly allocated to view one of eight EMA protocol mock-ups, each describing a food tracking process verbally and using screenshots. Afterwards, they rated the protocol in terms of its complexity (manipulation check), AIP and its potential impact on eating-related cognitions, intentions and eating behaviour change.
resultsThe eight EMA protocols differed in perceived complexity, that is protocols with more tracking features were perceived as more complex compared to those with fewer tracking features. EMA protocols that were perceived to be more complex were also perceived to induce more AIP. However, there were no differences in perceived impact on eating-related cognitions, intentions and behaviour.
conclusionsDifferences in complexity and usability may influence compliance and study results. Researchers thus need to carefully select the appropriate EMA protocol for their study to balance the need for collected information with the need for high compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.