PubMed2026
BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer often experience substantial fluctuations in psychological states during disease management. Traditional research tools are limited in capturing these dynamic changes in real time, constraining clinicians' understanding of patients' true conditions. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) enables high-frequency, real-time data collection, providing patient-reported data with greater ecological validity. However, the effectiveness of EMA studies critically depends on patient compliance, and reported compliance rates vary widely, with a lack of systematic quantitative synthesis. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review and quantitatively analyze compliance with EMA among patients with cancer, and to examine whether EMA design characteristics were associated with compliance. METHODS: Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched for literature published up to April 30, 2026. Compliance was defined as completed prompts divided by delivered prompts. Single-group proportions were pooled using logit transformation and random-effects models with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment. Prediction intervals were calculated to describe the expected distribution of compliance in future comparable settings. Subgroup analyses, univariable meta-regressions, leave-one-out sensitivity analyses, and tests for small-study effects were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data, methodological reporting quality was assessed using a modified Checklist for Reporting EMA Studies, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies involving 13,565 participants were included. The pooled compliance rate was 78.55% (95% CI 73.48%-82.87%), with a prediction interval of 48.59%-93.41%. Subgroup analyses identified no robust differences across study characteristics. Although study length showed a statistically significant subgroup test, the result was not stable after excluding singleton categories. Meta-regression analyses similarly found no significant linear associations for study length, prompts per day, items per prompt, or assessment window. Leave-one-out analyses showed that no single study drove the pooled estimate. Regarding the risk of bias, 2 studies were judged as low, while 21 were judged as moderate risk. Quality scores ranged from 6.5 to 9.0, and the certainty of evidence for the pooled compliance rate was rated as very low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. CONCLUSIONS: Overall compliance with EMA among patients with cancer was moderate to high, suggesting that repeated real-world assessment may be feasible in oncology research settings. Nevertheless, the very high heterogeneity, wide prediction interval, and very low certainty of evidence indicate that compliance is context-dependent. The pooled estimate should therefore be interpreted as an approximate benchmark rather than a universal expected rate. Future oncology EMA studies should use standardized compliance denominators, report missing prompts transparently, and prospectively evaluate patient-centered design strategies that reduce burden while preserving data quality.