Cited by 83Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationDigital Mental Health Interventions

A Pilot Comparison of a Smartphone App With or Without 2-Way Messaging Among Chronic Pain Patients: Who Benefits From a Pain App?

Open access
Jamison, Robert N., Jurcik, Dylan C., Edwards, Robert R., Huang, Chuan-Chin, Ross, Edgar L.·2017·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

Objectives: The overall aim of this study was to determine the effect of introducing a smartphone pain application (app), for both Android and iPhone devices that enables chronic pain patients to assess, monitor, and communicate their status to their providers. Methods: This study recruited 105 chronic pain patients to use a smartphone pain app and half of the patients (N=52) had 2-way messaging available through the app. All patients completed baseline measures and were asked to record their progress every day for 3 months, with the opportunity to continue for 6 months. All participants were supplied a Fitbit to track daily activity. Summary line graphs were posted to each of the patients’ electronic medical records and physicians were notified of their patient’s progress. Results: Ninety patients successfully downloaded the pain app. Average age of the participants was 47.1 (range, 18 to 72), 63.8% were female and 32.3% reported multiple pain sites. Adequate validity and reliability was found between the daily assessments and standardized questionnaires (r=0.50) and in repeated daily measures (pain, r=0.69; sleep, r=0.83). The app was found to be easily introduced and well tolerated. Those patients assigned to the 2-way messaging condition on average tended to use the app more and submit more daily assessments (95.6 vs. 71.6 entries), but differences between groups were not significant. Pain-app satisfaction ratings overall were high. Discussion: This study highlights some of the challenges and benefits in utilizing smartphone apps to manage chronic pain patients, and provides insight into those individuals who might benefit from mHealth technology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000455

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The advent of telemedicine and mHealth technologies has offered ways to help monitor and assess patient treatment response, adherence to opioid therapy recommendations, and mood among persons with chronic pain.

    “The advent of telemedicine and mHealth (mobile health) technologies has offered ways to help monitor and assess patient treatment response, adherence to opioid therapy recommendations, and mood among persons with chronic pain.67–69”

    From Risk Factors for Self-Harm Ideation among Persons Treated with Opioids for Chronic Low Back Pain (2023) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Methods section says the smartphone app collected daily ratings of pain, mood, and whether patients felt better or worse, supporting its use to monitor mood and treatment progress in chronic pain patients. It does not establish monitoring of adherence to opioid therapy recommendations; the paper defines adherence as completion of the app’s daily assessments, not adherence to opioid treatment. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • When an intervention was used as part of ongoing in-person therapy, the way therapists used or were willing to use it influenced participants' engagement.

    “If an intervention was used as part of ongoing in-person therapy, the way that therapists used or were willing to use an intervention influenced participants’ engagement with an intervention [84,103,127,150,169,212,243].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [243]

    The paper’s introductory discussion (page unavailable) reports that provider communication and support may increase app engagement, and its Discussion says participants receiving two-way messaging perceived their providers as less responsive. But its Results (page unavailable) found no significant difference in app-use frequency between messaging groups; it does not establish that therapists’ use of, or willingness to use, an intervention during ongoing in-person therapy influenced engagement. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [20]Jamison RN Learning to Master Your Chronic Pain. Sarasota, FL: Professional Research Press; 1996.
  2. [31]Institute of Medicine. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. 22553896

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jamison, R. N., Jurcik, D. C., Edwards, R. R., Huang, C.-C., & Ross, E. L.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Pain Management Center
Corresponding author
  • Jamison, Robert N.
  • Jurcik, Dylan C.
  • Edwards, Robert R.
  • Huang, Chuan-Chin
  • Ross, Edgar L.
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2017-08
Volume
33
Issue
8
Pages
676-686
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2551990423
Cited by
83
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4
FWCI
14.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (U54EB015403)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
chronic pain, mobile application, mobile health, two-way messaging, patient-provider communication, electronic health records, patient satisfaction, sleep assessment
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Physician-Patient Relations, Pilot Projects, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Satisfaction, Telemedicine, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records, Chronic Pain, Pain Management, Text Messaging, Mobile Applications

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