Implementing an EMA burst design in community-engaged research: participant and researcher perspectives and recommendations

ABSTRACT

Background: Implementing ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methodology to evaluate the substance use disorder (SUD) treatment pipeline has clear advantages, including learning about participants’ day-to-day experiences to aid in the improvement of services and accessibility for those seeking treatment. Given that the SUD treatment pipeline spans long periods of time, EMA burst designs (deployment of multiple short EMA periods spread over time) can be advantageous for evaluating the treatment pipeline over time while keeping participant burden low.

Objectives: This feasibility study describes (1) the process and study design of implementing EMA burst methodology to evaluate the SUD treatment pipeline experience; (2) study implementation from the perspective of researchers, including discussion of collaboration with community partners; and (3) participant feedback on the experience of engaging with this type of research.

Method: EMA metrics, feasibility ratings, and general experience ratings in the study are presented from 22 participants (64% women) who participated in a parent EMA study evaluating the SUD treatment pipeline and 8 who provided feedback in a follow-up survey.

Results: Participants found the EMA burst design to be acceptable and not burdensome, although technology issues were present for some participants. Steps to partnering with community treatment programs and implementation of a burst design are outlined.

Conclusions: Strategies and recommendations for implementation of an EMA burst study with community partners are provided, including aspects of study design, technology issues, retention, and funding.

KEYWORDS:

• Ecological momentary assessment
• substance use disorder treatment
• feasibility
• research treatment partnerships

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the staff and leadership at Phoenix Programs for their support and assistance with recruitment for this project. We would also like to acknowledge the undergraduate research assistants who assisted with screening and scheduling participants and Will Morrison and Luke Guerdan from the TigerAware team for their IT support provided throughout the study.

Disclosure statement

Timothy J. Trull is a co-founder of TigerAware LLC which developed the software described in this study. He receives no compensation or royalties for the use of the software.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2022.2160340

Notes

1. Compensation was provided electronically or mailed to participants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. The prorated payment rate based on percentage of EMA surveys completed was as follows: $100 for 80–100% completed; $80 for 70–79%; $60 for 60–69%; $40 for 50–59%; $0 for less than 50% completed.

3. Only 3 participants (of total N = 27) enrolled following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020.

4. If participants did not own a smartphone, they were provided a study smartphone but were still required to have regular internet/Wi-Fi access in order to be eligible for the study.

5. Nearly two-thirds of participants were unable to be reached for a follow-up survey invitation given changes in their contact information.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by: Missouri’s State Opioid Response grant; SAMHSA 1H79TI083284; NIH grants F31 AA027958 (PI: Wycoff), K08 AA028543 (PI: Helle), T32 AA013526 (PI: Sher); and the Missouri Center for Addiction Research and Engagement (MOCARE; MPIs: Trull & Winograd).