JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Geographically explicit ecological momentary assessment (GEMA) offers a novel approach to addressing this limitation by integrating momentary assessment with geolocation and geospatial data to examine these person–environment relationships in daily life, yet its applications and methodological characteristics have not been comprehensively synthesized.

Objective:

This scoping review summarized the purposes, methodological characteristics, environmental exposures, outcomes, and strengths and challenges of GEMA in mental health and health behavior research.

Methods:

Eight databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang) were searched from inception to May 17, 2026. Studies were eligible if they integrated ecological momentary assessment (EMA) with objective geolocation and geospatial environmental data. Data on study characteristics, EMA and geolocation methods, environmental exposures, health outcomes, and reported strengths and challenges were extracted and synthesized using descriptive statistics and narrative analysis.

Results:

Fifty-one studies were included, predominantly involving general populations (47, 92.2%). Three primary purposes of GEMA use are identified: (1) examining exposure–momentary outcome associations (n = 49, 96.1%); (2) exploring underlying mechanisms (n = 22, 43.1%); and (3) methodological assessments (n = 21, 41.2%). Time-contingent EMA predominated (n = 36, 70.6%), smartphones were the primary GPS device (n = 45, 88.2%), EMA and GPS collection configuration was often unclear (n = 33, 64.7%), monitoring usually lasted 1 to14 days (n = 35, 68.6%) and EMA assessed three to four per day (n = 20, 39.2%). Environmental exposures spanned built (n = 34, 66.7%), natural (n = 22, 43.1%), and social environments (n = 13, 25.5%). Mental health outcomes were more commonly assessed (n = 38, 74.5%) than health behaviors (n = 16, 31.4%), particularly mood and stress. Dynamic and fine-grained spatiotemporal assessment was the commonly reported strength (n = 47, 92.2%), whereas major challenges involved EMA design and participant implementation, geolocation data quality, and exposure assessment and spatiotemporal specification.

Conclusions:

GEMA offers a promising approach for exploring dynamic person–environment relationships in real-world settings. Future research should improve methodological standardization, strengthen temporal and exposure linkage, balance measurement intensity with feasibility. Clinical Trial: OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/Y852Z; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RZYBW.