A Health-Related Digital Ecological Momentary Assessment in Children (Aged 5- 11 Years): Systematic Review.

Background: Digital ecological momentary assessment (EMA) collects data on experiences as they occur in daily life, capturing dynamic, context-sensitive experiences often missed by retrospective reporting. While EMA shows promise for pediatric health research, preadolescents have distinct socioemotional and cognitive characteristics likely to affect engagement. Existing reviews have not focused on the acceptability and feasibility of EMA protocols for this age group. Objective: This review aimed to examine digital EMA protocols used with children aged 5-11 years across health domains, focusing on protocol characteristics, acceptability, and feasibility. We address 3 research questions (RQs)-RQ1: What are the characteristics of these protocols? RQ2: What is the feasibility and acceptability of these protocols? RQ3: What are the characteristics of high and low response rate protocols? Methods: We searched 10 databases (CINAHL, Embase, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE) for peer-reviewed studies published up to October 2025. Eligible studies used EMA with children aged 5-11 years to collect health data via digital devices. Two researchers independently screened studies (SC and LT); one (SC) conducted quality assessment and data extraction. Findings were narratively synthesized. Results: We identified 17 protocols across 37 studies. Most targeted nonclinical populations, used handheld devices, spanned 3-28 days, and applied interval-contingent prompting (RQ1). Response rates were available or calculable for 15 of 17 protocols, ranging from 48% to 92% (RQ2). Six protocols reported response rates of ≥80%. However, key data required for pooling (eg, raw counts for planned vs completed prompts) were missing or selectively reported. This contributed to 13 of 17 protocols being rated at critical risk of bias (ROBINS-I, v2). As a result, the strength of evidence was limited by poor reporting and high risk of bias. Facilitators included uncomplicated, engaging technology, reminders, and caregiver involvement. Barriers included device burden, restricted device access, difficulty with accurate reporting, stigma, limited device awareness, and insufficient caregiver support. High-response protocols (≥80%) often involved older children or clinical groups, ≥3-week duration, fixed schedules (≥20 items per prompt, 3 or 4 times per day), timing customization, and incentives (RQ3). Conclusions: This review provides the first systematic synthesis on preadolescents, offering insight into EMA protocol design beyond prior work treating children as a single group. By examining 17 EMA protocols, the review identifies gaps in developmental appropriateness and reporting quality, highlighting where the evidence may differ from adolescent and adult EMA research. The results suggest that digital EMA for preadolescents requires greater focus on child-centered design to increase acceptability and adherence, alongside improved reporting standards, so protocols can be meaningfully compared. With these advances, EMA could be more effectively integrated into pediatric health monitoring, tailored to the needs of different age groups.