Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Longitudinal and Combined Smartwatch and Ecological Momentary Assessment in Racially Diverse Older Adults: Feasibility, Adherence, and Acceptability Study
Holmqvist S, Kaplan M, Chaturvedi R, Shou H, Giovannetti T.. JMIR human factors, 2025-04-08
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results Consent comprehension quiz scores were high (mean 97.33%, SD 6.86% correct), and training sessions lasted on average 17.93 (SD 6.89) minutes. In unadjusted bivariate analyses, age, race, and cognition were associated with feasibility and adherence measures, but only age and race remained significant in multivariate models. After accounting for all participant factors, older age was a significant predictor of longer training time, and Black race was a significant predictor of lower daily wear time.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Holmqvist, S., Kaplan, M., Chaturvedi, R., Shou, H., & Giovannetti, T. (2025). Longitudinal and Combined Smartwatch and Ecological Momentary Assessment in Racially Diverse Older Adults: Feasibility, Adherence, and Acceptability Study. JMIR human factors. https://doi.org/10.2196/69952
Vancouver
Holmqvist S, Kaplan M, Chaturvedi R, Shou H, Giovannetti T. Longitudinal and Combined Smartwatch and Ecological Momentary Assessment in Racially Diverse Older Adults: Feasibility, Adherence, and Acceptability Study. JMIR human factors. 2025. doi:10.2196/69952. PMID: 40198914.
BibTeX
@article{holmqvist2025-40198914,
author = {Holmqvist, S. and Kaplan, M. and Chaturvedi, R. and Shou, H. and Giovannetti, T.},
title = {{Longitudinal and Combined Smartwatch and Ecological Momentary Assessment in Racially Diverse Older Adults: Feasibility, Adherence, and Acceptability Study}},
journal = {JMIR human factors},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.2196/69952},
pmid = {40198914},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/69952}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Consent comprehension quiz scores were high (mean 97.33%, SD 6.86% correct), and training sessions lasted on average 17.93 (SD 6.89) minutes.
- In unadjusted bivariate analyses, age, race, and cognition were associated with feasibility and adherence measures, but only age and race remained significant in multivariate models.
- After accounting for all participant factors, older age was a significant predictor of longer training time, and Black race was a significant predictor of lower daily wear time.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants44
- Effect size97.33%; 6.86%; 9.58%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR human factors) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 44 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40198914) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also in Cognitive tests and assessment
109 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.