Intensive momentary reporting of pain with an electronic diary: reactivity, compliance, and patient satisfaction
Abstract
Patient self-reports are the primary method for capturing the experience of pain, and diaries are often used to collect patient self-reports. This study was designed to determine if momentary monitoring of pain with an electronic diary affected pain levels over time, if it affected weekly recall of pain, and if daily sampling density affected compliance rates and patients' reactions to the study. Ninety-one patients with chronic pain were randomized into four groups with differing levels of momentary monitoring over 2 weeks. Little support was found for reactivity defined as temporal shifts in pain over the study or as changes in recalled weekly pain due to momentary monitoring. Compliance with the electronic diary protocol was 94% or better, and was not related to sampling density. Patients reported little difficulty with the diary procedures and were not unduly burdened by the protocol.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Ecological Momentary Assessments collected by using handheld personal data assistants help enhance compliance and provide precise information on time and date of diary entries.
“This methodology helps enhance compliance and provides precise information on time and date of diary entries.8,113,115”
From Psychological aspects of persistent pain: Current state of the science (2004) · cites this paper as [113]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 293
- Authors
- Stone, A. A., Broderick, J. E., Schwartz, J. E., Shiffman, S., Litcher-Kelly, L., & Calvanese, P.
- Affiliations
- Stony Brook University (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stone, Arthur A.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 343-351
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1995352144
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 6.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA085819, CA-85819)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Keywords
- self-reported pain, electronic diary, chronic pain, reactivity, compliance, sampling density, patient satisfaction, study burden
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Patient Compliance, Time Factors, Chi-Square Distribution, Patient Satisfaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
