ReachRxResearch
Home
Research
Sign Up
  1. Home
  2. Research Hub
  3. Feasibility and Acceptability of a Smart…

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Smartphone and Wearable Assessment Protocol for Adolescents with Depression

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology·June 18Open Access
Psychology, ClinicalLimited evidenceAdolescent DepressionDepressionFeasibility And Acceptability StudyActigraphyEcological Momentary AssessmentPassive Mobile SensingAdolescent

Summary

View source

What was studied

This study tested whether a one-month combined EMA (ecological momentary assessment), wrist actigraphy, and passive mobile sensing protocol was feasible and acceptable in 69 adolescents (ages 12–18) with elevated depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥16), recruited from a southeastern U.S. community sample.

Key findings

91% of participants completed all protocol components and were willing to participate again. Overall EMA completion was 60.5%; shifting to a semi-personalized schedule (EARS 2.0) raised feelings-survey completion from ~76.9 to ~94.1 surveys. Actigraph wear averaged 72.4% of the time (~17 hrs/day), with 57% wearing it ≥80% of the period. Passive sensor availability varied widely: accelerometer and motion data captured ~17–18 hrs/day on average, while GPS averaged only ~8.3 hrs/day.

Study limitations

- Multiple protocol changes (app version, compensation, schedule) occurred concurrently, so improved adherence in EARS 2.0 cannot be attributed to any single change. - Sample was geographically restricted to South Florida, predominantly female and Hispanic/Latine, limiting generalizability. - Sensor data availability partly reflected event frequency (e.g., calls, battery events) rather than true adherence, complicating interpretation.

Clinical implications

Clinicians and researchers planning digital mental health monitoring in depressed adolescents can expect roughly 60–72% adherence with a one-month multimodal protocol—feasible but lower than adult benchmarks. Semi-personalized EMA schedules, extended response windows, and daily staff check-ins appear to improve engagement and should be built into study or clinical monitoring designs.

Caveats

  • GPS data availability showed a strong negative correlation with motion sensor data (r = −0.47), which the authors note but do not fully explain; clinicians using GPS-derived mobility as a depression biomarker should be cautious about iOS vs. Android differences.
  • No randomized comparator group; this is a single-arm feasibility study, so adherence comparisons between protocol versions (EARS 1.0 vs. 2.0) are confounded by simultaneous changes in compensation, schedule, and app functionality.
  • The 'level of evidence' tag reflects a single-arm observational/feasibility design rather than an interventional hierarchy.

Related Questions

Explore related topics

What EMA completion rates are achievable in adolescents with depression over one month?How does personalized EMA scheduling affect adherence in youth mental health studies?What are the privacy and ethical considerations for passive smartphone sensing in adolescent research?

Publication Details

Year
2026
Journal
Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology
Sample Size
n=69
Source
View article
Keep scrolling
More content below.
Up Next