Design Decisions for a Real Time, Alcohol Craving Study Using Physio- and Psychological Measures

The current study was a pilot for an alcohol craving monitoring study with a biosensor (E4 wristband) and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) smartphone app. The E4 wristband was evaluated on compliance rates, usability, comfort and stigmatization. Two EMA methodologies (signal- and interval-contingent design) were compared on data variability, compliance and perceived burden. Results show that both EMA methodologies captured variability of craving and compliance rates were between medium to low. The perceived burden of the designs was high, in particular for the signal-contingent design. Participants wore the wristband ranging from occasionally to often and the usability was rated good. Many participants reported frequent questioning about the bracelet, which they indicated as positive. However, addicted individuals are expected not to appreciate this attention, we therefore propose to provide them with coping strategies. Efforts should be made to increase compliance, we therefore propose the interval contingent design with micro incentives.

[1]  E. Diener,et al.  Experience Sampling: Promises and Pitfalls, Strengths and Weaknesses , 2003 .

[2]  J. Smyth,et al.  The use of ecological momentary assessment approaches in eating disorder research. , 2001, International Journal of Eating Disorders.

[3]  Harri Oinas-Kukkonen,et al.  Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features , 2009, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[4]  S. Shiffman Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in studies of substance use. , 2009, Psychological assessment.

[5]  Rune Fensli,et al.  Human Factors Affecting the Patient's Acceptance of Wireless Biomedical Sensors , 2008, BIOSTEC.

[6]  J. Bricout,et al.  Denial in Addiction: Toward an Integrated Stage and Process Model—Qualitative Findings , 2002, Journal of psychoactive drugs.

[7]  B. Carter,et al.  Meta-analysis of cue-reactivity in addiction research. , 1999, Addiction.

[8]  S. Thomas,et al.  Assessing Craving for Alcohol , 1999, Alcohol research & health : the journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

[9]  M. Garry,et al.  Dear diary, is plastic better than paper? I can't remember: Comment on Green, Rafaeli, Bolger, Shrout, and Reis (2006). , 2006, Psychological methods.

[10]  James T. Miller,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  Jeroen H. M. Bergmann,et al.  Wearable and Implantable Sensors: The Patient’s Perspective , 2012, Italian National Conference on Sensors.

[12]  Andrew Raij,et al.  Exploring micro-incentive strategies for participant compensation in high-burden studies , 2011, UbiComp '11.

[13]  M. Mehl,et al.  Handbook of research methods for studying daily life , 2012 .

[14]  S. Shiffman,et al.  Methodological issues affecting the value of patient-reported outcomes data , 2002, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[15]  D J Rohsenow,et al.  Does Urge To Drink Predict Relapse After Treatment? , 1999, Alcohol research & health : the journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

[16]  D. Moskowitz,et al.  Measuring People Intensively , 2009 .

[17]  Fuschia Serre,et al.  Ecological momentary assessment in the investigation of craving and substance use in daily life: a systematic review. , 2015, Drug and alcohol dependence.