Using the experience sampling method to support clinical practice: An illustration with problematic cannabis use

Abstract

Objective

The experience sampling method (ESM) has been frequently used in clinical research; however, there is low translational uptake in clinical practice. This may be due to challenges with interpreting individual-level data at granular intervals. We provide an illustrative example of how ESM can be leveraged to generate personalized cognitive–behavioral strategies for problematic cannabis use.

Method

We conducted a descriptive case series analysis using ESM data from 30 individuals reporting on problematic cannabis use, craving, affect, and coping four times daily for 16-days (t = 64, T = 1,920).

Results

Analyzing ESM data using descriptive statistics and visualizations from individuals with similar clinical and demographic profiles supported a diverse array of personalized clinical insights and recommendations for each case. These recommendations included psychoeducation regarding affect- and boredom-regulation strategies, functional analyses of occasions during which cannabis was not used, and discussions on how cannabis use intersects with one’s personal values.

Conclusion

While many clinicians utilize measurement-based care, barriers have limited the incorporation of ESM towards personalized, data-informed approaches to treatment. We provide an illustrative example of how ESM data can be used to generate actionable treatment strategies for problematic cannabis use and highlight continued challenges with interpreting time-series data.

Keywords:

• measurement-based care
• experience sampling method
• cannabis use
• clinical recommendations
• cognitive–behavioral strategies

Author Note

Authorship contribution statements using CRediT: Marilyn L. Piccirillo: Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, software, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing; Matthew C. Enkema: Conceptualization, data curation, funding acquisition, investigation, resources, writing – review and editing; Katherine T. Foster: Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, supervision, writing – review and editing. These data are not publicly available and this study was not preregistered. The materials used (e.g., EMA items) are cited in Table I and analytic code is included in Appendix A.

This research was supported by National Institute of Drug Abuse (Enkema, F31DA042503), National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Hallgren, K01AA024796), and the Addictions, Drug, and Alcohol Institute of the University of Washington (ADAI-201603-13). Marilyn Piccirillo was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Larimer, T32AA00455; Piccirillo, K99AA029459). Matthew Enkema was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Larimer, T32AA00455) and the National Institute of Mental Health (Unützer, T32MH020021).

Matthew Enkema is now affiliated with the Evidence Based Treatment Centers of Seattle.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2023.2184284

Notes

1 A constant of 1 was added to all cells in the McNemar’s test to accommodate a cell count of 0.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health: [grant no T32MH020021]; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: [grant no K99AA029459,T32AA00455]; National Institute on Drug Abuse: [grant no F31DA042503]; “Addictions, Drug, and Alcohol Institute” affiliated with the University of Washington: [grant no ADAI-201603-13].