Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

The feasibility and acceptability of using EMA and physiological data to measure day-to-day occupational stress, musculoskeletal pain and mental health.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Biomed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101462768 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1756-0500 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17560500 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Res Notes Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: London : Biomed Central, 2008.
    • Subject Terms:
      Musculoskeletal Pain*/physiopathology ; Musculoskeletal Pain*/psychology ; Occupational Stress*/psychology ; Occupational Stress*/physiopathology ; Feasibility Studies* ; Mental Health*; Humans ; Male ; Female ; Adult ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Middle Aged
    • Abstract:
      Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of using EMA questionnaires and physiological data via wristbands to measure day-to-day occupational stress, musculoskeletal pain, and mental health among university employees (N = 23), across 10 work days. Adherence to the study protocol as well as participant experiences (via semi-structured interviews) with the protocol were used to assess feasibility and acceptability of the method.
      Results: Adherence to the study protocol was excellent. Participants wore the wristband for a mean of 9.7 days. Participants completed a mean of 24.5 EMAs (out of 30). Semi-structured interviews with participants revealed that a small number of participants had difficulties uploading data from the wristband. The timing of EMAs was challenging for some participants, resulting in missed EMAs, raising questions about whether EMA frequency and timing could be changed to improve adherence. Some EMA items were difficult to answer due to the nature of participants' roles and the work undertaken. Overall, the protocol was feasible and acceptable but highlighted future potential changes including using a different physiological data collection tool, reducing the number of EMAs, adjusting EMA timings, and reviewing EMA items.
      (© 2024. The Author(s).)
    • References:
      Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 27;17(23):. (PMID: 33561061)
      Chronobiol Int. 2018 Apr;35(4):465-476. (PMID: 29235907)
      Physiol Meas. 2017 May;38(5):787-799. (PMID: 28151434)
      Psychophysiology. 2019 Oct;56(10):e13420. (PMID: 31184379)
      Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2023 Mar;96(2):201-212. (PMID: 36104629)
      Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 16;20(4):. (PMID: 36834221)
      PLoS One. 2018 Feb 28;13(2):e0192691. (PMID: 29489850)
      PLoS One. 2016 Mar 15;11(3):e0150205. (PMID: 26978655)
      Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1-32. (PMID: 18509902)
      J Public Health Dent. 2011 Winter;71 Suppl 1:S69-79. (PMID: 21656958)
      PLoS One. 2023 Feb 21;18(2):e0281556. (PMID: 36802385)
      J Med Internet Res. 2023 Oct 19;25:e39995. (PMID: 37856180)
      Anxiety Stress Coping. 2011 Jul;24(4):359-67. (PMID: 21253957)
      PLoS One. 2021 May 26;16(5):e0251975. (PMID: 34038458)
      Epilepsy Res. 2019 Jul;153:79-82. (PMID: 30846346)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Acceptability; Ecological momentary assessment (EMA); Feasibility; Occupational stress; Physiological data; Protocol
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20241001 Date Completed: 20241002 Latest Revision: 20241004
    • Publication Date:
      20260130
    • Accession Number:
      PMC11446061
    • Accession Number:
      10.1186/s13104-024-06950-1
    • Accession Number:
      39354620