Reliability and concurrent validity of a mobile application to measure thoracolumbar range of motion in low back pain patients

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.

Feasibility of blinding spinal manual therapy interventions among participants and outcome assessors: protocol for a blinding feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

Blinding is a methodologically important aspect in randomised controlled trials yet frequently overlooked in trials of spinal manual therapy interventions for back pain. To help inform the blinding methods of a future, double-placebo-controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain, we set four objectives: (1) to assess the feasibility of blinding participants, randomly allocated to an active or placebo-control spinal manual therapy intervention protocol, (2) to assess the feasibility of blinding outcome assessors within the trial, (3) to explore the influence of spinal manual therapy experience and low back pain on blinding, and (4) to explore factors contributing to perceptions about intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two-parallel-group, single-centre, placebo-controlled, methodological blinding feasibility randomised trial. We will recruit between 60 and 100 adults with or without back pain and with or without experience of spinal manual therapy from Zurich, Switzerland. Participants will be randomised to either an active spinal manual therapy or a placebo-control spinal manual therapy protocol-both interventions delivered over two study visits, up to two weeks apart. The primary outcome is participant blinding using the Bang blinding index within each intervention arm immediately after each of the two study visits. Secondary outcomes are participant blinding using the James blinding index, outcome assessor blinding (Bang and James blinding indices), self-reported factors influencing perceived intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors, and participant-reported credibility and expectancy of study interventions. Other outcomes-included to blind the study objective from participants-are lumbar spine range of motion, self-rated general health, satisfaction with care, pain intensity, and function. Intervention provider outcomes include intervention component fidelity and quality of intervention delivery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The independent ethics commission of Canton Zurich granted ethical approval for this study (KEK 2023-00381). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated in scientific conferences and a peer-reviewed publication and inform the blinding methods of a future double-placebo controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain-the SALuBRITY trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05778396.

Is blinding in studies of manual soft tissue mobilisation of the back possible? A feasibility randomised controlled trial with Swiss graduate students

STUDY DESIGN

Single-centre, two-parallel group, methodological randomised controlled trial to assess blinding feasibility.

BACKGROUND

Trials of manual therapy interventions of the back face methodological challenges regarding blinding feasibility and success. We assessed the feasibility of blinding an active manual soft tissue mobilisation and control intervention of the back. We also assessed whether blinding is feasible among outcome assessors and explored factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment.

METHODS

On 7-8 November 2022, 24 participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to active or control manual interventions of the back. The active group (n = 11) received soft tissue mobilisation of the lumbar spine. The control group (n = 13) received light touch over the thoracic region with deep breathing exercises. The primary outcome was blinding of participants immediately after a one-time intervention session, as measured by the Bang blinding index (Bang BI). Bang BI ranges from -1 (complete opposite perceptions of intervention received) to 1 (complete correct perceptions), with 0 indicating 'random guessing'-balanced 'active' and 'control' perceptions within an intervention arm. Secondary outcomes included blinding of outcome assessors and factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment among both participants and outcome assessors, explored via thematic analysis.

RESULTS

24 participants were analysed following an intention-to-treat approach. 55% of participants in the active manual soft tissue mobilisation group correctly perceived their group assignment beyond chance immediately after intervention (Bang BI: 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25 to 0.84]), and 8% did so in the control group (0.08 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.53]). Bang BIs in outcome assessors were 0.09 (-0.12 to 0.30) and -0.10 (-0.29 to 0.08) for active and control participants, respectively. Participants and outcome assessors reported varying factors related to their perceptions about intervention assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinding of participants allocated to an active soft tissue mobilisation of the back was not feasible in this methodological trial, whereas blinding of participants allocated to the control intervention and outcome assessors was adequate. Findings are limited due to imprecision and suboptimal generalisability to clinical settings. Careful thinking and consideration of blinding in manual therapy trials is warranted and needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05822947 (retrospectively registered).

Apps in Clinical Practice: Usage Behaviour of Trauma Surgeons and Radiologists in Northern Germany

Introduction

Apps, in general, are an integral part of our daily lives. To investigate the current usage behaviour of trauma surgeons and radiologists regarding medical apps in clinical practice and to find out if and how the current range of medical apps can be improved, we surveyed trauma surgeons and radiologists in northern Germany. Material and Methods. An online questionnaire was sent to 100 trauma surgeons and 100 radiologists in northern Germany. Participants were asked about the frequency of their use of medical apps in clinical practice, which apps were used most often, how useful participants thought apps were, and in which area they would like to see improvements. The most frequently mentioned apps were finally analyzed.

Results

The survey study showed that 87.4% of the trauma surgeons and 67.4% of the radiologists use medical apps on a regular basis at work. It also revealed that trauma surgeons used medical apps much more often than radiologists and that young doctors were more likely to rely on medical apps than chief physicians. 80.0% of the participants would pay at least 5 euros for a medical app. Trauma surgeons see the greatest need for support in their daily work from medical apps in the area of treatment, while radiologists seek more support in the area of classification.

Conclusion

The study underscored the broad acceptance of medical apps in everyday clinical practice. As the physicians are willing to spend money and stated a general interest and need for further developments, there is high potential for the future. This trial is registered with DRKS00026766.

Evaluation of a Mobile Application for Chronic Low Back Pain Management: Prospective Pilot Study (Preprint)

Background

Chronic low back pain is challenging to manage due to multidisciplinary considerations. It has substantial socioeconomic impacts and cannot be simply treated with pharmacotherapy, nonsurgical intervention, or spine surgery. Medical consensus recommends optimizing conservative self-management therapies (eg, home exercise, wellness strategies, yoga, etc) as first-line treatment options for chronic low back pain. However, access to these modalities is often limited and secondary to cost, convenience, and ease of use. Mobile health apps have emerged as a cost-effective and accessible option for chronic low back pain self-management. Established in-person pain programs can provide the structure for an optimal mobile app adaptation. PainNavigator (PainNavigator, Inc) is an example of a mobile app that is based on an Ascension-Illinois group–based pain program—Pain Rehabilitation Outpatient-Camp.

Objective

This was a prospective pilot clinical trial that evaluated the PainNavigator platform’s utility in low back pain management to inform future trial development.

Methods

A total of 75 participants who used PainNavigator were studied. Pain, Enjoyment, and General Activity (PEG-3) scale scores and scores from a brief anxiety and depression scale based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) were obtained at baseline and following program completion. The PEG-3 total score was used, in addition to individual items—Average Pain, Pain Effect on Enjoyment, and Pain Effect on Activity. The PHQ-4 total score was also used, in addition to other individual items, including Felt Depressed, Loss of Interest, Felt Anxious, and Difficult to Control Worry. Paired sample t tests (2-tailed) compared mean differences in scores from before and after participants received the intervention.

Results

The analysis found that PEG-3 (n=27) and PHQ-4 (n=27) total scores were significantly lower upon the completion of PainNavigator (P<.001 and P=.001, respectively). The findings showed a 36% reduction in PEG-3 total scores, a 40% reduction in pain intensity, and a 40% reduction in PHQ-4 total scores. Scores for individual PEG-3 scale and PHQ-4 items also significantly decreased. All PEG-3 measures had large effect sizes. The PHQ-4 total score and Difficult to Control Worry item had large effect sizes, while the other three measures had medium effect sizes.

Conclusions

These findings show that PainNavigator has clinical significance in managing chronic low back pain and can be easily utilized to improve patient care. All PEG-3 scale and PHQ-4 measures significantly improved following the use of the platform, supporting the multidimensional, biopsychosocial approach to low back pain management. Differences in effect sizes may inform quality improvement investigations, such as optimizing features that impact measures with only medium effect sizes. This feasibility study demonstrates an effective protocol, and it will inform future, more extensive randomized controlled trials.

Motor alterations in the kinetic chain in individuals with chronic shoulder pain

BACKGROUND

Shoulder pain may be related to biomechanical dysfunctions in the kinetic chain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the mobility and muscular endurance of thoracolumbar spine and hip, and the neuromuscular control of the lower extremity of individuals with and without shoulder pain and to determine the discriminative capacity between groups of these variables.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHOD

One hundred and two individuals with and without shoulder pain were evaluated to range of motion (ROM) of the thoracolumbar spine and hips, the muscular endurance time of the thoracolumbar spine and hips muscles, and the neuromuscular control of the lower extremity, by the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT).

RESULTS

Individuals with shoulder pain presented lower ROM and muscular endurance time in all tests evaluated (p < 0.01-p = 0.03), greater perception of pain during all ROM and muscle endurance (p < 0.01-p = 0.04) evaluations, and less neuromuscular control of the lower extremity in the compound reach (p < 0.01-p = 0.01), anterior and posteromedial (p < 0.01-p = 0.04) directions of the SEBT on both sides. The anterior reach direction of the SEBT of the contralateral limb to the shoulder pain (AUC=0.80, cut-off point=47.7%) presented excellent capacity to discriminate individuals with shoulder pain, while the other variables showed between acceptable and small capacity (AUC=0.58-0.76).

CONCLUSION

Individuals with chronic shoulder pain presented alterations in joint mobility, muscular endurance time of the thoracolumbar spine and hips and neuromuscular control of the lower extremity. The anterior reach of the SEBT of the contralateral limb showed excellent discriminative capacity.