Title | ||
---|---|---|
Design Decisions For A Real Time, Alcohol Craving Study Using Physio- And Psychological Measures |
Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
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. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
2017 | 10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_1 | PERSUASIVE TECHNOLOGY: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PERSONALIZED TECHNOLOGIES TO CHANGE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS, PERSUASIVE 2017 |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
Biosensor, Ecological momentary assessment, Data variability, Compliance rates, Perceived burden, Usability, Wearing comfort, Stigmatization | Social psychology,Craving,Incentive,Usability,Coping (psychology),Psychology | Conference |
Volume | ISSN | Citations |
10171 | 0302-9743 | 0 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.34 | 5 | 10 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Hendrika G. van Lier | 1 | 0 | 0.34 |
Mira Oberhagemann | 2 | 0 | 0.34 |
Jessica D. Stroes | 3 | 0 | 0.34 |
Niklas M. Enewoldsen | 4 | 0 | 0.34 |
Marcel E. Pieterse | 5 | 5 | 1.15 |
Jan Maarten Schraagen | 6 | 130 | 13.99 |
Marloes G. Postel | 7 | 0 | 0.34 |
Miriam M. R. Vollenbroek-Hutten | 8 | 15 | 10.29 |
Hein A. de Haan | 9 | 0 | 0.34 |
Matthijs L. Noordzij | 10 | 34 | 4.24 |