Loading evaluation data…
Abstract Background With the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) participants are asked to provide self-reports of their symptoms, feelings, thoughts and behaviours in daily life. This preregistered systematic review assessed how ESM is being used to monitor emotional well-being, somatic health, fatigue and pain in children and adolescents with a chronic somatic illness. Methods Databases were searched from inception. Studies were selected if they included children or adolescents aged 0–25 years with a chronic somatic illness and used ESM focussing on mental health or psychosocial wellbeing, biopsychosocial factors and/or somatic health. Two reviewers extracted data of the final 47 papers, describing 48 studies. Results Most studies evaluated what factors influence medical or psychological symptoms and how symptoms influence each other. Another common purpose was to study the feasibility of ESM or ESM as part of an app or intervention. Study methods were heterogeneous and most studies lack adequate reporting of ESM applications and results. Conclusions While ESM holds great potential for providing results and feedback to patients and caregivers, little use is being made of this option. Future studies should consider what they report in their studies, conduct a priori power analyses and how ESM can be embedded in clinical practice. Impact While ESM has many clinical applications, it is currently mostly used for research purposes. Current studies using ESM are heterogeneous and lack consistent, high-quality reporting. There is great potential in ESM for providing patients and parents with personalised feedback.
Strengths
The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, searched five databases from inception with a research librarian, and reported interrater agreement at each screening stage (96.82%, 94.88%, 87.41%). Data extraction materials and quality assessments are deposited on OSF.
↳ Methods — Search strategy, Study selection, Data extraction; Data Availability section
All 48 included studies were assessed using the van Roekel checklist, with results reported at the individual study level in Table 3. The finding that 56.25% of studies were rated poor quality and none achieved good quality is a substantive contribution to quality benchmarking in this subfield.
↳ Results — Quality of ESM data and studies; Table 3
Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide detailed, well-organized study-level information on purpose, sample characteristics, ESM design parameters, and quality scores. This creates a usable reference resource for researchers and clinicians planning ESM implementations in paediatric settings.
↳ Tables 1, 2, 3; Fig. 1
Limitations
Each of the two researchers extracted data from 50% of selected articles and cross-checked the other 50%. This 50/50 split with cross-checking is a weaker approach than full independent dual extraction and reduces confidence in extraction accuracy, particularly given the complexity of the ESM-specific data points extracted.
↳ Methods — Data extraction
While interrater agreement is reported for all title/abstract and full-text screening stages, no inter-rater reliability statistics are provided for the quality assessment using the van Roekel checklist. Given that quality assessment results are a primary outcome of the review, this is a notable methodological gap.
↳ Methods — Quality and risk of bias; Table 3
The inclusion of studies with participants up to age 25 extends beyond standard paediatric definitions. Several included studies feature mean participant ages above 20 years, complicating the review's framing as specifically paediatric. The methodological justification for this age boundary is limited.
↳ Methods — Eligibility criteria; Table 1 (e.g., Gevonden et al., mean age 26.5; Campbell et al., mean age 23)
This systematic review is the first to consolidate how ESM is applied across paediatric chronic somatic illness, and it accomplishes its descriptive aims competently. The strongest features are its transparent, pre-registered methodology and the comprehensive study-level tables that serve as a practical reference resource. The key tension in evaluating the review's craft concerns execution gaps: while the search strategy and screening process are well-documented with interrater statistics, the data extraction approach (50/50 split) and absent inter-rater reliability for quality assessment fall short of the standards reported for other procedural steps. The review's impact is inherently constrained by its descriptive scope — it maps what exists rather than providing actionable clinical guidance, but it does establish a clear baseline against which future field progress can be measured. The finding that zero studies met the threshold for 'good quality' reporting is a meaningful contribution that directly supports the review's recommendations for improved reporting standards.
Moderate3.5/5.0
The review fills a genuine gap as the first comprehensive overview of ESM applications in paediatric chronic somatic illness, identifying important reporting deficiencies and the absence of clinical integration. The contribution is primarily cartographic rather than empirically generative, mapping an emerging field and establishing baseline quality benchmarks (e.g., 0 of 48 studies rated good quality).
the field of ESM in paediatrics seems in its infancy
The review methodology is competently executed with pre-registration (PROSPERO), multi-database search by a research librarian, and documented interrater agreement at each screening stage. However, data extraction used a 50/50 split with cross-checking rather than full independent dual extraction, and inter-rater reliability for the quality assessment is not reported despite being reported for screening stages.
Both researchers extracted data from 50% of selected articles and double-checked the data-extraction for the other 50%
The paper is well-structured with clear research questions, a logical methods-to-results-to-discussion flow, and comprehensive study-level tables (Tables 1–3) and PRISMA flow diagram. Language is appropriately hedged throughout, consistently framing conclusions as descriptive and avoiding overclaiming.
The review engages appropriately with the core ESM literature and positions the paediatric chronic illness application within broader clinical trends such as value-based healthcare and shared decision-making. Limitations are honestly acknowledged, including that the quality checklist was developed for psychology research. The review does not engage deeply with the broader patient-reported outcomes literature in paediatrics or discuss potential publication bias in the included literature.
Watch-outs4 of 4 checks
The paper is internally consistent across abstract, full text, tables, and PRISMA flow diagram. Numbers (47 papers, 48 studies, 1726 participants) are coherent throughout. No statistical impossibilities, methods-results mismatches, or selective reporting signs were identified.
The study is prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022268954), declares PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 compliance, and deposits data on OSF with a specific URL and view-only token. No ethics approval is expected for a systematic review. A formal conflict of interest statement is not visible in the provided text, which is noted as a minor gap.
Flags: 2 declared / 5 total
All 17 cited references resolved to real publications via PubMed, Crossref, or OpenAlex.
No retraction notice found in Retraction Watch.
Sources: Retraction Watch ✓PubPeer (coming soon)
Medium3.1/5.0
The review addresses an identifiable need among paediatric clinicians and researchers working with children with chronic somatic illness who want to use ESM. Specific application contexts are named (asthma, diabetes, JIA, chronic pain), but the connection to specific decision-makers or guideline development processes remains general rather than sharply specified.
The review is a descriptive field map that demonstrates ESM feasibility across conditions but does not itself provide validated implementation pathways or operational guidance for clinical deployment. Recommendations (use the van Roekel checklist, conduct power analyses, share items in repositories) are actionable but generic.
Future studies should consider what they report in their studies, conduct a priori power analyses
The review covers 48 studies across diverse chronic conditions and multiple countries, supporting broad applicability of field-level conclusions about reporting quality. However, the heterogeneity and predominantly small sample sizes of included studies limit the precision of condition-specific or age-specific recommendations.
The review is well-positioned in the ESM literature trajectory, building on van Roekel et al. (2019) and Russell & Gajos (2020) by extending to a specific clinical population. It provides a baseline quality assessment that future reviews can use to track field improvement and identifies concrete next steps including power analyses, open-science item sharing, and clinical integration.
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Evaluation Metadata
AI-powered, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.