Smartphone-Based Remote Self-Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Study

Impact of 25 Years of Mobile Health Tools for Pain Management in Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Mobile technologies are increasingly being used in health care and public health practice for patient communication, monitoring, and education. Mobile health (mHealth) tools have also been used to facilitate adherence to chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) management, which is critical to achieving improved pain outcomes, quality of life, and cost-effective health care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the 25-year trend of the literature on the adherence, usability, feasibility, and acceptability of mHealth interventions in CMP management among patients and health care providers.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for studies assessing the role of mHealth in CMP management from January 1999 to December 2023. Outcomes of interest included the effect of mHealth interventions on patient adherence; pain-specific clinical outcomes after the intervention; and the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of mHealth tools and platforms in chronic pain management among target end users.

RESULTS

A total of 89 articles (26,429 participants) were included in the systematic review. Mobile apps were the most commonly used mHealth tools (78/89, 88%) among the included studies, followed by mobile app plus monitor (5/89, 6%), mobile app plus wearable sensor (4/89, 4%), and web-based mobile app plus monitor (1/89, 1%). Usability, feasibility, and acceptability or patient preferences for mHealth interventions were assessed in 26% (23/89) of the studies and observed to be generally high. Overall, 30% (27/89) of the studies used a randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort, or pilot design to assess the impact of the mHealth intervention on patients' adherence, with significant improvements (all P<.05) observed in 93% (25/27) of these studies. Significant (judged at P<.05) between-group differences were reported in 27 of the 29 (93%) RCTs that measured the effect of mHealth on CMP-specific clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is great potential for mHealth tools to better facilitate adherence to CMP management, and the current evidence supporting their effectiveness is generally high. Further research should focus on the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for better incorporating these tools into health care practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42024524634; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=524634.

Patients' and professionals' experiences with remote care during COVID-19: a qualitative study in general practices in low-income neighborhoods

AIM

To explore how patients and general practice professionals in low-income neighborhoods experienced the increase of remote care during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND

As the GP (general practitioner) is the first point of contact in Dutch health care, there are concerns about access to remote care for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Now that general practice professionals have returned to the pre-pandemic ways of healthcare delivery, this paper looks back at experiences with remote care during COVID-19. It investigates experiences of both patients and general practice professionals with the approachability and appropriateness of remote care and their satisfaction.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, 78 patients and 18 GPs, 7 nurse practitioners and 6 mental health professionals were interviewed. Interviews were held on the phone and face-to-face in the native language of the participants.

FINDINGS

Remote care, especially telephone consultation, was generally well-approachable for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Contrarily, video calling was rarely used. This was partly because patients did not know how to use it. The majority of patients thought remote care was possible for minor ailments but would also still like to see the doctor face-to-face regularly. Patients were generally satisfied with remote care at the time, but this did not necessarily reflect their willingness to continue using it in the future. Moreover, there was lack in consensus among general practice professionals on the appropriateness of remote care for certain physical and mental complaints. Nurse practitioners and mental health professionals had a negative attitude toward remote care. In conclusion, it is important to take the opinions and barriers of patients and care providers into account and to increase patient-centered care elements and care provider satisfaction in remote care. Integrating remote care is not only important in times of crisis but also for future care that is becoming increasingly digitalized.

Physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches in patients with chronic low-back pain: a level I Bayesian network meta-analysis

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a major cause of disability and healthcare expenditure worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing globally from somatic and psychosocial factors. While non-pharmacological management, and in particular physiotherapy, has been recommended as a first-line treatment for cLBP, it is not clear what type of physiotherapeutic approach is the most effective in terms of pain reduction and function improvement. This analysis is rendered more difficult by the vast number of available therapies and a lack of a widely accepted classification that can effectively highlight the differences in the outcomes of different management options. This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. In January 2024, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. All the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy of physiotherapy programs in patients with cLBP were accessed. Studies reporting on non-specific or mechanical cLPB were included. Data concerning the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data from 12,773 patients were collected. The mean symptom duration was 61.2 ± 51.0 months and the mean follow-up was 4.3 ± 5.9 months. The mean age was 44.5 ± 9.4 years. The mean BMI was 25.8 ± 2.9 kg/m2. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest pain score, followed by Multidisciplinary and Adapted Training Exercise/Complementary Medicine. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest RMQ score followed by Therapeutic Exercises and Multidisciplinary. The Multidisciplinary group evidenced the lowest ODI score, followed by Adapted Physical Exercise and Physical Agent modalities. Within the considered physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches to manage nonspecific and/or mechanic cLBP, adapted physical exercise, physical agent modalities, and a multidisciplinary approach might represent the most effective strategy to reduce pain and disability.

Smartphone applications are used for self-management, telerehabilitation, evaluation and data collection in low back pain healthcare: a scoping review

Background

Smartphone use has grown in providing healthcare for patients with low back pain (LBP), but the literature lacks an analysis of the use of smartphone apps. This scoping review aimed to identify current areas of smartphone apps use for managing LBP. We also aimed to evaluate the current status of the effectiveness or scientific validity of such use and determine perspectives for their potential development.

Methods

We searched PubMed, PEDro and Embase for articles published in English up to May 3 rd, 2021 that investigated smartphone use for LBP healthcare and their purpose. All types of study design were accepted. Studies concerning telemedicine or telerehabilitation but without use of a smartphone were not included. The same search strategy was performed by two researchers independently and a third researcher validated the synthesis of the included studies.

Results

We included 43 articles: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n=12), study protocols (n=6), reliability/validity studies (n=6), systematic reviews (n=7), cohort studies (n=4), qualitative studies (n=6), and case series (n=1). The purposes of the smartphone app were for 1) evaluation, 2) telerehabilitation, 3) self-management, and 4) data collection. Self-management was the most-studied use, showing promising results derived from moderate- to good-quality RCTs for patients with chronic LBP and patients after spinal surgery. Promising results exist regarding evaluation and data collection use and contradictory results regarding measurement use.

Conclusions

This scoping review revealed a notable interest in the scientific literatures regarding the use of smartphone apps for LBP patients. The identified purposes point to current scientific status and perspectives for further studies including RCTs and systematic reviews targeting specific usage.

The effect of self-management techniques on relevant outcomes in chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Among many treatment approaches for chronic low back pain (CLBP), self-management techniques are becoming increasingly important. The aim of this paper was to (a) provide an overview of existing digital self-help interventions for CLBP and (b) examine the effect of these interventions in reducing pain intensity, pain catastrophizing and pain disability.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Following the PRISMA guideline, a systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. We included randomized controlled trials from the last 10 years that examined the impact of digital self-management interventions on at least one of the three outcomes in adult patients with CLBP (duration ≥3 months). The meta-analysis was based on random-effects models. Standardized tools were used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) for each study and the quality of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

We included 12 studies (n = 1545). A small but robust and statistically significant pooled effect was found on pain intensity (g = 0.24; 95% CI [0.09, 0.40], k = 12) and pain disability (g = 0.43; 95% CI [0.27, 0.59], k = 11). The effect on pain catastrophizing was not significant (g = 0.38; 95% CI [-0.31, 1.06], k = 4). The overall effect size including all three outcomes was g = 0.33 (95% CI [0.21, 0.44], k = 27). The RoB of the included studies was mixed. The quality of evidence was moderate or high.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we were able to substantiate recent evidence that digital self-management interventions are effective in the treatment of CLBP. Given the heterogeneity of interventions, further research should aim to investigate which patients benefit most from which approach.

SIGNIFICANCE

This meta-analysis examines the effect of digital self-management techniques in patients with CLBP. The results add to the evidence that digital interventions can help patients reduce their pain intensity and disability. A minority of studies point towards the possibility that digital interventions can reduce pain catastrophizing. Future research should further explore which patients benefit most from these kinds of interventions.

Software-based interventions for low back pain management: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Using software for self-management interventions can improve health outcomes for individuals with low back pain, but there is a dearth of research to confirm its effectiveness. Additionally, no known research has evaluated the effective elements of software-based interventions for low back pain self-management components. This study aimed to synthesize the effectiveness of software-based interventions to promote self-management health outcomes among individuals with low back pain.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement, relevant studies up to July 2022 were searched via four electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

4908 adults with low back pain who participated in 23 studies were included. Software-based interventions were effective in reducing fear avoidance (mean difference [MD] = -0.95, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.44), pain catastrophizing (MD = -1.31, 95% CI: -1.84 to -0.78), disability (MD = -8.21, 95% CI: -13.02 to -3.39), and pain intensity (MD = -0.86, 95% CI: -1.17 to -0.55). Specifically, interventions that included an exercise component were more effective in reducing pain and disability. Additionally, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention significantly reduced fear avoidance and pain catastrophizing but had no noticeable impact on disability and pain compared to standard treatment. The certainty of the evidence in this review varied from very low to high across outcomes. The heterogeneity of the study results was significant, suggesting that future studies in this area could optimize the design, time points, measures, and outcomes to strengthen the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Low back pain self-management interventions delivered through software-based programs effectively reduce pain intensity, disability, fear avoidance, and pain catastrophizing.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Low back pain is among the most common reasons for seeking healthcare visits. Combining exercise and counseling through soft-based programs may effectively address this issue and its associated suffering and disability.

Exploring mHealth applications for self-management of chronic low back pain: A survey of features and benefits

The adoption of Mobile Health (mHealth) for self-management is growing. mHealth solutions are commonly used in public healthcare and health services, where they are appreciated for their ease of use, broad reach, and wide acceptance. Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is one of the most common health problems and a leading cause of disability. As such, it imposes a tremendous burden on patients and society. Studies have proposed that mHealth self-management solutions, such as mobile applications, can supplement traditional care methods and benefit patients, particularly in self-managing CLBP easier. To this end, the number of available mobile applications for CLBP has increased. This paper i) provides an overview of scientific studies on mobile applications for CLBP management from three different viewpoints: researchers, health professionals, and patients, ii) uncovers the application features that were seen as beneficial in the studies, and iii) contrasts the currently available applications for CLBP in Google Play Store and Apple App Store against the discovered features. The findings show that "Personalization and customization" is the most significant feature as it is beneficial from stakeholders' viewpoint and is represented by most applications. In contrast, "Gamification" and "Artificial intelligence" are the least significant features, indicating a lack of attention from application creators and researchers in this area.

mHealth Intervention for Improving Pain, Quality of Life, and Functional Disability in Patients With Chronic Pain: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain (CP) is 1 of the leading causes of disability worldwide and represents a significant burden on individual, social, and economic aspects. Potential tools, such as mobile health (mHealth) systems, are emerging for the self-management of patients with CP.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted to analyze the effects of mHealth interventions on CP management, based on pain intensity, quality of life (QoL), and functional disability assessment, compared to conventional treatment or nonintervention.

METHODS

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines were followed to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) databases from February to March 2022. No filters were used. The eligibility criteria were RCTs of adults (≥18 years old) with CP, intervened with mHealth systems based on mobile apps for monitoring pain and health-related outcomes, for pain and behavioral self-management, and for performing therapeutic approaches, compared to conventional treatments (physical, occupational, and psychological therapies; usual medical care; and education) or nonintervention, reporting pain intensity, QoL, and functional disability. The methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) were assessed using the Checklist for Measuring Quality, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence, and the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

In total, 22 RCTs, involving 2641 patients with different CP conditions listed in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11), including chronic low back pain (CLBP), chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP), chronic neck pain (CNP), unspecified CP, chronic pelvic pain (CPP), fibromyalgia (FM), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and osteoarthritis (OA). A total of 23 mHealth systems were used to conduct a variety of CP self-management strategies, among which monitoring pain and symptoms and home-based exercise programs were the most used. Beneficial effects of the use of mHealth systems in reducing pain intensity (CNP, FM, IC/BPS, and OA), QoL (CLBP, CNP, IBS, and OA), and functional disability (CLBP, CMSP, CNP, and OA) were found. Most of the included studies (18/22, 82%) reported medium methodological quality and were considered as highly recommendable; in addition, 7/22 (32%) studies had a low RoB, 10/22 (45%) had some concerns, and 5/22 (23%) had a high RoB.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of mHealth systems indicated positive effects for pain intensity in CNP, FM, IC/BPS, and OA; for QoL in CLBP, CNP, IBS, and OA; and for functional disability in CLBP, CMSP, CNP, and OA. Thus, mHealth seems to be an alternative to improving pain-related outcomes and QoL and could be part of multimodal strategies for CP self-management. High-quality studies are needed to merge the evidence and recommendations of the use of mHealth systems for CP management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022315808; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315808.

Long-term effects of deep-learning digital therapeutics on pain, movement control, and preliminary cost-effectiveness in low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

The present study aimed to compare the effects of a deep learning-based digital application with digital application physical therapy (DPT) and those of conventional physical therapy (CPT) on back pain intensity, limited functional ability, lower extremity weakness, radicular symptoms, limited range of motion (ROM), functional movement, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and postintervention questionnaires for perceived transmission risk of COVID-19 and satisfaction results in 100 participants with low back pain (LBP).

Methods

One hundred participants with LBP were randomized into either DPT or CPT groups, three times per week over four weeks. Outcome measures included the (1) Oswestry Disability Index, (2) Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, (3) Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), (4) Numeric Pain Rating Scale, (5) functional movement screen (FMS), (6) short form-12, (7) lower extremity strength, (8) ROM of trunk flexion, extension, and bilateral side bending, (9) questionnaires for perceived transmission risk of COVID-19, (10) preliminary cost-effectiveness, and (11) postintervention satisfaction questionnaire results. The analysis of variance was conducted at p < 0.05.

Results

Analysis of variance showed that DPT showed superior effects, compared to CPT on RMDQ, hip extensor strength, transmission risk of COVID-19, as well as satisfaction. Both groups showed significant improvement pre- and postintervention, suggesting that DPT is as effective as CPT, and was superior in preliminary cost-effectiveness and transmission risk of COVID-19.

Conclusions

Our results provide novel, promising clinical evidence that DPT was as effective as CPT in improving structural and functional impairment, activity limitation, and participation restriction. Our results highlight the successful incorporation of DPT intervention for clinical outcome measures, lower extremity strength, trunk mobility, ADL improvement, QOL improvement, and FMS in LBP.

Effectiveness of smartphone apps for the self-management of low back pain in adults: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To explore the effectiveness of smartphone apps for the self-management of low back pain in adults.

METHODS

Prospectively registered systematic review of randomised controlled trials (2008-) published in English. Studies investigating smartphone apps for the self-management of low back pain (adults ≥18 years), including ≥1 NICE low back pain and sciatica clinical guideline-recommended component and functioning without health professional input were included. Outcomes were pain, function, quality of life and adherence.

RESULTS

Six studies were included (n = 2100 participants). All comparator groups incorporated some form of management (n = 3 physiotherapy, n = 2 GPs, n = 1 not specified). Three studies reported a significant decrease in pain intensity in the intervention group compared with the control. One study reported no significant difference between groups in pain self-efficacy. One study reported a significant reduction in disability (function) in the intervention group compared with the control. Two studies reported no between-group differences in quality of life. One study reported no correlation between adherence (app use) and change in pain intensity and one study reported that app use mediated the effect of teleconsultations on pain improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

Inconclusive evidence exists for the use of smartphone applications for the self-management of low back pain. Further research is needed.Implications for RehabilitationSmartphone apps have the potential to improve outcomes for people with LBP aligned with current self-management guidelines.There is a paucity of literature exploring smartphone apps for LBP self-management and current evidence is inconclusive for smartphone app use without supported care.Commercially available smartphone apps are not well regulated for content or alignment with evidence-based guidelines and recommendations.Further evaluation of commercially available apps is required to guide and instil confidence in consumers and health professionals that consumer-accessible apps may lead to improved outcomes.

Efficacy of e-Health Interventions in Patients with Chronic Low-Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Low-back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Around 75-84% of the world's population will experience LBP at some point, establishing it as a major global health problem. e-Health is the remote delivery of therapeutic services, clinical information, and medical care, and may prove a very useful approach to tackle this pathology. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of e-health-based interventions in improving the symptoms of chronic LBP. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and PEDro until January 2022 through the assessment of methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Studies were included in which e-health interventions were used as experimental treatment compared to physical therapy to determine changes in back-specific functional status and pain in patients with chronic LBP. Two reviewers examined the sources individually, calculated the risk of bias, and extracted the data (PROSPERO number CRD42022306130). The effect size was calculated using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its confidence interval (95% CI). Results: A total of 9 randomized controlled trials with 3,180 participants were included. The results of the findings showed an effect of e-health compared to other physical therapy on short-term (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI: -1.77 to 0.59) and intermediate short-term (SMD = -0.40, 95% CI: -0.91 to 0.11) pain intensity and back-specific functional status in the short term (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI: -0.81 to 0.41) and intermediate short term (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI: -0.74 to 0.14). The effect of e-health compared to minimal intervention on short-term intermediate pain intensity (SMD = -0.64, 95% CI: -1.72 to 0.45) and short-term intermediate back-specific functional status (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -0.87 to 0.09). Conclusions: e-Health interventions based on self-maintenance and education are as effective on pain and back-specific functional status as other face-to-face or home-based interventions in patients with chronic LBP, with moderate scientific evidence.

Long-term Use of Wearable Health Technology by Chronic Pain Patients

OBJECTIVES

People living with chronic pain may use wearable health technology (WHT) in conjunction with an expert-directed pain management program for up to 1 year. WHT use may be associated with improvements in key patient outcomes.

METHODS

A 12-month study of WHT use among people with chronic pain was conducted, consisting of iPhone and Apple Watch applications to measure movement, sleep, and self-reported pain. Clinical outcomes among 105 patients enrolled in a multidisciplinary pain program that included WHT use were compared with 146 patients in the same program but without WHT, and to 161 patients receiving medical pain management without WHT.

RESULTS

Participants used the WHT on average 143.0 (SD: 117.6) out of 365 days. Mixed-effects models revealed participants who used WHT had decreases in depression scores (-7.83, P <0.01) and prescribed morphine milligram equivalents (-21.55, P =0.04) over 1 year. Control groups also showed decreases in depression scores (-5.08, P =0.01; -5.68, P <0.01) and morphine milligram equivalents (-18.67, P =0.01; -10.99, ns). The estimated slope of change among the WHT was not statistically different than control groups.

DISCUSSION

Patients who used WHT as part of their pain management program demonstrated a willingness to do so for extended periods of time despite living with chronic pain and other comorbidities. Data trends suggest that WHT use may positively impact depression and prescribed medication. Additional research is warranted to investigate the potential of WHT to improve the negative consequences of chronic pain.

App-Based Rehabilitation in Back Pain, a Systematic Review

Smartphones and their associated applications are used frequently by patients and clinicians alike. Despite the technology being widely accessible, their use to aid in rehabilitation is yet to be adopted. The SARS CoV-2 pandemic has presented an opportunity to expedite their integration given the difficulty patients currently have in accessing healthcare. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review on the use of smartphone rehabilitation applications compared to standard physiotherapy for back pain. We conducted a search of Medline/Pubmed and google databases using the search terms [APP] AND [[Orthopaedic] OR [Neurosurgery]], following the PRISMA guidelines. All prospective studies investigating rehabilitation applications for back pain or following spine surgery were included. A total of nine studies met the inclusion criteria which investigated 7636 patients, of which 92.4% were allocated to the interventional group (n = 7055/7636) with a follow up of 4 weeks to 6 months. All except one study reported on patients experiencing back pain on average for 19.6 ± 11.6 months. The VAS-pain score was presented in all studies without significance between the interventional and control group (p = 0.399 before and p = 0.277 after intervention). Only one research group found significantly higher improvement in PROMs for the application group, whereas the remaining showed similar results compared to the control group. Using application-based rehabilitation programs provides an easily accessible alternative or substitute to traditional physiotherapy for patients with back pain. Given that smartphones are so prevalent in activities in our daily lives, this will enhance and improve rehabilitation if patients are self-dedicated and compliant.

mHealth Apps for Low Back Pain Self-management: Scoping Review

Background

The role of self-management in health promotion, as well as prevention and rehabilitation, is increasing through the use of mobile health (mHealth) apps. Such mHealth apps are also increasingly being used for self-management of low back pain (LBP), but their effectiveness has not been sufficiently explored.

Objective

The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the literature on self-management mHealth apps and their effects on the levels of pain and disability in people with LBP.

Methods

We applied the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) methodology, including a priori research questions. A literature search was conducted in 2 databases (PubMed and PEDro) for studies published between January 1, 2015, and June 17, 2021. Interventional, cohort, or case series studies with an interventional period were included if the mHealth app included built-in self-management content, the app was used for self-management for people with LBP, and the study reported outcomes regarding pain and disability in people with LBP.

Results

In total, 7 studies were selected for the review with overall 2307 persons with LBP, of whom 1328 (57.56%) were women. Among the studies (5/7, 71%) that reported the type of pain, 85% (390/459) of the participants were experiencing chronic LBP. A total of 5 different mHealth apps were identified, of which 4 contributed to a statistically significant reduction in LBP and clinically meaningful changes. Of the 7 studies, 4 (57%) used 4 different assessments for disability, of which 3 (75%) showed statistically significant improvements in the level of functional ability of participants in the experimental groups using an mHealth app with built-in self-management content for LBP.

Conclusions

This scoping review supports the conclusion that people with LBP may benefit from mHealth apps that provide self-management content. However, the generalizability of the findings is limited because of heterogeneity in the pain characterization of the included participants and the intervention durations. More high-quality studies with longer follow-up periods to investigate personalized mHealth approaches are recommended for LBP self-management.

Contrasting the Expectations and Experiences of Mobile Health Use on Chronic Pain: A Questionnaire Study (Preprint)

Background

Chronic pain is a prolonged condition that deteriorates one's quality of life. Treating chronic pain requires a multicomponent approach, and in many cases, there are no “silver bullet” solutions. Mobile health (mHealth) is a rapidly expanding category of solutions in digital health with proven potential in chronic pain management.

Objective

This study aims to contrast the viewpoints of 2 groups of people with chronic pain concerning mHealth: people who have adopted the use of mHealth and those who have not. We highlight the benefits of mHealth solutions for people with chronic pain and the perceived obstacles to their increased adoption. We also provide recommendations to encourage people to try mHealth solutions as part of their self-care.

Methods

The Prolific crowdsourcing platform was used to collect crowdsourced data. A prescreening questionnaire was released to determine what type of pain potential participants have and whether they are currently using mHealth solutions for chronic pain. The participants were invited based on their experience using mHealth to manage their pain. Similar questions were presented to mHealth users and nonusers. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed to determine the outcomes of this study.

Results

In total, 31 responses were collected from people (aged 19-63 years, mean 31.4, SD 12.1) with chronic pain who use mHealth solutions. Two-thirds (n=20, 65%) of the users identified as female and 11 (35%) as male. We matched these mHealth users with an equal number of nonusers: 31 responses from the pool of 361 participants in the prescreening questionnaire. The nonusers’ ages ranged from 18 to 58 years (mean 30.8, SD 11.09), with 15 (50%) identifying as female and 15 (50%) as male. Likert-scale questions were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (MWW) test. Results showed that the 2 groups differed significantly on 10 (43%) of 23 questions and shared similar views in the remaining 13 (57%). The most significant differences were related to privacy and interactions with health professionals. Of the 31 mHealth users, 12 (39%) declared that using mHealth solutions has made interacting with health or social care professionals easier (vs n=22, 71%, of nonusers). The majority of the nonusers (n=26, 84%) compared with about half of the users (n=15, 48%) expressed concern about sharing their data with, for example, third parties.

Conclusions

This study investigated how mHealth is currently used in the context of chronic pain and what expectations mHealth nonusers have for mHealth as a future chronic pain management tool. Analysis revealed contrasts between mHealth use expectations and actual usage experiences, highlighting privacy concerns toward mHealth solutions. Generally, the results showed that nonusers are more concerned about data privacy and expect mHealth to facilitate interacting with health professionals. The users, in contrast, feel that such connections do not exist.

Implementation of Online Behavior Modification Techniques in the Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: The main aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) was to assess the effectiveness of online behavior modification techniques (e-BMT) in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods: We conducted a search of Medline (PubMed), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, APA PsychInfo, and Psychological and Behavioral Collections, from inception to the 30 August 2021. The main outcome measures were pain intensity, pain interference, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing and self-efficacy. The statistical analysis was conducted using RStudio software. To compare the outcomes reported by the studies, we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) over time and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the continuous variables. Results: Regarding pain intensity (vs. usual care/waiting list), we found a statistically significant trivial effect size in favor of e-BMT (n = 5337; SMD = −0.17; 95% CI −0.26, −0.09). With regard to pain intensity (vs. in-person BMT) we found a statistically significant small effect size in favor of in-person BMT (n = 486; SMD = 0.21; 95%CI 0.15, 0.27). With respect to pain interference (vs. usual care/waiting list) a statistically significant small effect size of e-BMT was found (n = 1642; SMD = −0.24; 95%CI −0.44, −0.05). Finally, the same results were found in kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, and self-efficacy (vs. usual care/waiting list) where we found a statistically significant small effect size in favor of e-BMT. Conclusions: e-BMT seems to be an effective option for the management of patients with musculoskeletal conditions although it does not appear superior to in-person BMT in terms of improving pain intensity.

Does m-health-based exercise (guidance plus education) improve efficacy in patients with chronic low-back pain? A preliminary report on the intervention's significance

BACKGROUND

The utilization of mobile health (m-health) has rapidly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is still a lack of relevant clinical data pertaining to chronic low-back pain (CLBP) management. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of m-health-based exercise (via guidance plus education) versus exercise (via guidance) during CLBP management.

METHODS

Participants (n = 40) were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. The intervention group received m-health-based exercise (via guidance plus education), whereas the control group received m-health-based exercise (via guidance). The exercise prescription video and educational content were sent to participants by the application (app), Ding Talk. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test the baseline's intervention effects, 6-week follow-up, and 18-week follow-up. We selected function (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) and pain intensity (current, mean, and most severe Numeric Rating Scale in the last 2 weeks) as the primary outcomes, changes of negative emotion (depression, anxious), and quality of life as the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Time's significant effect was found in pain, function, and health-related quality of life in both groups, but time did not show significant interaction effects. Participants were able to use m-based education with their anxiety and depression after treatment, but the relief only lasted until week 6. No differences were found on the aspect of mental health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary findings suggest that m-health-based exercise (via guidance) may be a convenient and effective method to treat CLBP. However, additional health education didn't help more. More rigorous controlled trials are needed to improve the therapeutic effect in future studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trials Registry Number ChiCTR2000041459 . Registered on December 26, 2020.

Effects of booster sessions on self-management interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

ABSTRACT

Our objective was to investigate the effectiveness of booster sessions after self-management interventions as a means of maintaining self-management behaviours in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsychINFO. Two authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. We calculated the odds ratio for the analyses of dichotomous data and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables. Our search identified 14 studies with a total of 1695 patients. All studies were at high risk of bias and provided very low quality evidence. For the primary outcomes, booster sessions had no evidence of an effect on improving patient-reported outcomes on physical function (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.06; P = 0.18), pain-related disability (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.03; P = 0.11), and pain self-efficacy (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.36; P = 0.18). For the secondary outcomes, booster sessions caused a significant reduction in patient-reported pain catastrophising (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.19; P = 0.0004) and no evidence of an effect on patient-reported pain intensity, depression, coping, or treatment adherence. There is currently little evidence that booster sessions are an effective way to prolong positive treatment effects or improve symptoms of long-term musculoskeletal conditions after self-management interventions. However, the studies were few with high heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and overall low quality of evidence. Our review argues against including booster sessions routinely to self-management interventions for the purpose of behaviour maintenance.

Efficacy and safety of treating chronic nonspecific low back pain with radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT), rESWT combined with celecoxib and eperisone (C + E) or C + E alone: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether respectively radial extracoporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) or a combination of rESWT, celecoxib and eperisone (rESWT + C + E) are superior in reducing pain in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (cnsLBP) compared to C + E alone (a standard treatment of this condition in China).

METHODS

140 patients with cnsLBP were randomly allocated to rESWT (n = 47), rESWT + C + E (n = 45) or C + E alone (n = 48) for four weeks between November 2017 and March 2019. Outcome was evaluated using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and Patient Health Questionnaire 9, collected at baseline as well as one week (W1), W2, W3, W4 and W12 after baseline.

RESULTS

All scores showed a statistically significant improvement over time. The PSEQ and NRS scores showed a significant Time × Treatment effect. Patients treated with rESWT had significantly lower mean NRS values than patients treated with rESWT + C + E at W1 and W3, as well as than patients treated with C + E alone at W3 and W4. No severe adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

rESWT may not be inferior to respectively rESWT + C + E or C + E alone in reducing pain in patients with cnsLBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, prospective, randomized, active-controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03337607. Registered November 09, 2017, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03337607 .

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I; prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

An investigation into the use of mHealth in musculoskeletal physiotherapy: Scoping Review (Preprint)

Background

Musculoskeletal physiotherapy provides conservative management for a range of conditions. Currently, there is a lack of engagement with exercise programs because of the lack of supervision and low self-efficacy. The use of mobile health (mHealth) interventions could be a possible solution to this problem, helping promote self-management at home. However, there is little evidence for musculoskeletal physiotherapy on the most effective forms of mHealth.

Objective

The aim of this review is to investigate the literature focusing on the use of mHealth in musculoskeletal physiotherapy and summarize the evidence.

Methods

A scoping review of 6 peer-reviewed databases was conducted in March 2021. No date limits were applied, and only articles written in the English language were selected. A reviewer screened all the articles, followed by 2 additional researchers screening a random sample before data extraction.

Results

Of the 1393 studies, 28 (2.01%) were identified. Intervention characteristics comprised stretching and strengthening exercises, primarily for degenerative joint pain and spinal conditions (5/28, 18%). The most reported use of mHealth included telephone and videoconferencing calls to provide a home exercise program or being used as an adjunct to physiotherapy musculoskeletal assessment (14/28, 50%). Although patient satisfaction with mHealth was reported to be high, reasons for disengagement included a lack of high-quality information and poor internet speeds. Barriers to clinical uptake included insufficient training with the intervention and a lack of time to become familiar.

Conclusions

mHealth has some benefits regarding treatment adherence and can potentially be as effective as normal physiotherapy care while being more cost-effective. The current use of mHealth is most effective when ongoing feedback from a health care professional is available.

Efficacy of Mobile Health in Patients With Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the most common health problems and a main cause of disability, which imposes a great burden on patients. Mobile health (mHealth) affects many aspects of people's lives, and it has progressed rapidly, showing promise as an effective intervention for patients with low back pain. However, the efficacy of mHealth interventions for patients with low back pain remains unclear; thus, further exploration is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mHealth interventions in patients with low back pain compared to usual care.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials designed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement standard. We searched for studies published in English before October 2020 in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Two researchers independently scanned the literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Bias risks were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We used RevMan 5.4 software to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies with 792 participants met the inclusion criteria. The simultaneous use of mHealth and usual care showed a better reduction in pain intensity than usual care alone, as measured by the numeric rating scale (mean difference [MD] -0.85, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.40; P<.001), and larger efficacy in reducing disability, as measured by the Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (MD -1.54, 95% CI -2.35 to -0.73; P<.001). Subgroup analyses showed that compared with usual care, mHealth using telephone calls significantly reduced pain intensity (MD -1.12, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.53; P<.001) and disability score (MD -1.68, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.63; P<.001). However, without the use of telephone calls, mHealth had no obvious advantage over usual care in improving pain intensity (MD -0.48, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.20; P=.16) and the disability score (MD -0.41, 95% CI -1.88 to 1.05; P=.58). The group that received a more sensitive feedback intervention showed a significantly reduced disability score (MD -4.30, 95% CI -6.95 to -1.69; P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of simultaneous mHealth and usual care interventions has better efficacy than usual care alone in reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain. Moreover, the results of subgroup analysis revealed that mHealth using telephone calls might play a positive role in improving pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain.

Mobile Application-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness

Chronic pain is one of the major causes of disability in the general population. Even though there are effective treatment options available for reducing symptoms, these treatments often do not have consistent lasting effects. As the usage of mobile devices has increased enormously during the last few years, mobile application-based treatment options are widespread. Such app-based programs are not yet empirically proven but might enable patients to become more independent in their pain management in order to prevent relapse. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize the literature on mobile application-based interventions for chronic pain patients. Therefore, three electronic bibliographic databases, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, were searched for studies that investigated the effectiveness of mobile application-based intervention for chronic pain on pain intensity. The final sample comprised twenty-two studies, with a total of 4679 individuals. Twelve of these twenty-two studies used a randomized control trial (RCT) design, while ten studies only used an observational design. For all twenty-two studies, a small but significant effect (d = -0.40) was found when compared to baseline measures or control groups. The results suggest that apps-based treatment can be helpful in reducing pain, especially in the long-term.