App-Based Relaxation Exercises for Patients With Chronic Neck Pain: Pragmatic Randomized Trial

Engagement in Digital Self-management Interventions for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Digital interventions promise to increase access to non-pharmacological chronic pain treatment and reduce burden for both individuals seeking care and pain providers/clinics. Unfortunately, despite early evidence of efficacy, engagement in self-management digital interventions for chronic conditions is typically low. A comprehensive analysis into how engagement in these programs is measured and reported is warranted. The current systematic review evaluated engagement in digital self-management interventions for chronic pain and identified gaps to improve reporting of engagement data.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-registered systematic review using Boolean search terms to identify digital chronic pain self-management interventions that did not include clinician support. After removal of duplicates and screening, 150 full-text manuscripts were assessed, and 43 studies met inclusion criteria. Data was extracted and examined from included manuscripts.

RESULTS

Of the 43 included articles, five articles were based on 2 separate datasets, resulting in a final sample of 41 unique datasets representing 4205 participants that were mostly non-Hispanic White, female, and with at least some college education. Approximately 10% of studies did not report any data related to system use or self-reported engagement. Most engagement data consisted of mean system use variables, with a handful of studies describing self-reported use of skills and very few studies examining demographic variables associated with engagement.

DISCUSSION

To address identified gaps in the reviewed literature, we suggest guidelines for collecting and reporting engagement in digital chronic pain interventions. Consistent reporting of engagement data will improve evaluation, efficacy, and improvement of interventions designed to assist individuals who may otherwise not receive non-pharmacological pain treatment.

Mobile health intervention CanRelax reduces distress in people with cancer in a randomized controlled trial

Mindfulness and relaxation exercises are effective face-to-face interventions for reducing distress in people with cancer. Their effectiveness in mobile health settings has yet to be investigated. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the CanRelax 2 app in reducing distress in people with cancer. German-speaking adults diagnosed with cancer within the last five years with elevated distress levels (Distress Thermometer ≥5) were recruited. Participants were randomized to the CanRelax 2 app or a waitlist control group. The primary endpoint was the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) after 10 weeks (210 participants). We observed a clinically meaningful larger reduction in PHQ-ADS scores in the intervention group compared to the control group (-3.7, 95%-CI from -5.7 to -1.6; p = 0.0005). Similar effects were found for distress, well-being, and self-regulation. Our results confirm the effectiveness of a mobile health app in reducing distress in people with cancer. Registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00027546) on 23.02.2022.

Efficacy of mHealth in Patients With Chronic Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of mobile health-based interventions for alleviating symptoms of chronic neck pain in patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in databases, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding support provided to patients with chronic neck pain using mobile health interventions from database inception to March 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature and evaluated the quality using the Cochrane Handbook 5.1 risk of bias assessment tool. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.2, and the quality of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs comprising 825 participants were included. A meta-analysis indicated that mobile health interventions were more effective than other physical therapies for reducing pain (short-term: SMD = -0.76, [95% CI -1.50, -0.02], p = .04; mid-term: SMD = -0.48, [95% CI -0.78, -0.18], p < .01), although there was no significant difference for improving neck disability status (short-term: MD = -6.74, [95% CI -13.65, 0.17], p = .06; mid-term: SMD = -2.26 [95% CI -6.71, 2.20], p = .32). Compared to minimal intervention, mobile health interventions were more effective in reducing pain (short-term: SMD = -1.16, [95% CI -1.70, -0.63], p < .001) and improving neck disability status (short-term: MD = -7.88, [95% CI -12.27, -3.13], p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mobile health-based interventions positively affected the predictive outcomes for patients with chronic neck pain, reduced pain levels, and improved neck disability. Further research is needed to demonstrate their benefits for reducing fear of pain and improving quality of life.

An Evaluation of the Design of Multimedia Patient Education Materials in Musculoskeletal Health Care: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Educational multimedia is a cost-effective and straightforward way to administer large-scale information interventions to patient populations in musculoskeletal health care. While an abundance of health research informs the content of these interventions, less guidance exists about optimizing their design.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify randomized controlled trials of patient populations with musculoskeletal conditions that used multimedia-based patient educational materials (PEMs) and examine how design was reported and impacted patients' knowledge and rehabilitation outcomes. Design was evaluated using principles from the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML).

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched from inception to September 2023 for studies examining adult patients with musculoskeletal conditions receiving multimedia PEMs compared to any other interventions. The primary outcome was knowledge retention measured via test scores. Secondary outcomes were any patient-reported measures. Retrievability was noted, and PEMs were sourced through search, purchase, and author communication.

RESULTS

A total of 160 randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion: 13 (8.1%) included their educational materials and 31 (19.4%) required a web search, purchase, or direct requests for educational materials. Of these 44 (27.5%) studies, none fully optimized the design of their educational materials, particularly lacking in the CTML principles of coherence, redundancy, modality, and generative activities for the learner. Of the 160 studies, the remaining 116 (72.5%) contained interventions that could not be retrieved or appraised. Learning was evaluated in 5 (3.1%) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Musculoskeletal studies should use open science principles and provide their PEMs wherever possible. The link between providing multimedia PEMs and patient learning is largely unexamined, but engagement potential may be maximized when considering design principles such as the CTML.

Effectiveness of Digital Health Interventions (DHI) in Chronic Pain Management: A Scoping Review of Current Evidence and Emerging Trends

This review aims to address the impact of digital health interventions (DHIs) on chronic pain management, specifically, mHealth, eHealth, wearable devices, virtual reality (VR), and artificial intelligence. The following study identifies and assesses DHIs' efficacy in specific chronic pain conditions and then extrapolates improved outcomes and patient groups that benefit from their use. Using a systematic methodology, this review synthesizes findings that could improve knowledge for patients and practitioners in chronic pain management while also addressing gaps in understanding the impact of DHIs. Sub-questions guide the identification of gaps and recommendations assessing DHIs' effectiveness for pain reduction and improved quality of life. A systematic search across databases (EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Central) targets original, English-language, peer-reviewed studies (2013-2023). The inclusion criteria cover DHIs in chronic pain management for adults age 18+, excluding non-full texts, reviews, opinion pieces, or unrelated articles. Search terms include "chronic pain management" OR "long-term pain relief strategies" OR "sustained pain alleviation" OR "pain control for chronic conditions" OR "chronic pain" AND "ehealth interventions" OR "mobile health interventions" OR "digital therapy" OR "health informatic solutions" OR "digital health intervention." After applying inclusion criteria, 34 articles from 11 countries are included, with studies conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17), United Kingdom (n = 4), and Australia (n = 3). DHIs are emerging as effective tools in pain management, as they can emphasize patient autonomy and communication with clinicians while enabling medical self-management in diverse populations. These various digital interventions show promise in reducing pharmaceutical usage and deferring surgical procedures, with most studies reporting positive outcomes in pain reduction. DHIs were also associated with positive mental health outcomes; however, some studies found no significant improvement. Additionally, interventions targeting pain catastrophizing showed varied results, with some app-based approaches demonstrating promise. Overall, the review underscores the potential of DHIs in improving chronic pain management outcomes.

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.

Effects of Telerehabilitation on Pain and Disability in Patients with Chronic Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in patients suffering from chronic neck pain, specifically on pain and disability. The research delves into an area of growing significance within the realm of healthcare, aiming to understand the impact of digital interventions on the rehabilitation process for individuals with prolonged neck pain. (2) Methods: The comprehensive review encompasses a wide array of studies evaluating the collective outcomes of numerous trials focused on telerehabilitation strategies. In this systematic review, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to identify studies on telerehabilitation's impact on pain. (3) Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Using the Downs and Black quality assessment, three studies were classified as good and five as fair. The authors identify specific modalities within telerehabilitation, such as remote exercise programs and virtual consultations, that contribute significantly to positive patient outcomes. Meta-analysis indicated a significant overall effect of telerehabilitation on pain reduction (MD = -1.27; 95% CI = -2.06; -0.47; p = 0.002). These findings support telerehabilitation's efficacy in pain management. (4) Conclusions: The synthesis of evidence presented in this systematic review and meta-analysis underscores the potential of telerehabilitation as an effective and accessible means of managing chronic neck pain, offering valuable insights for both healthcare practitioners and policymakers in advancing patient-centered care.

Efficacy of telerehabilitation in patients with nonspecific neck pain: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

At a rate of more than 30% annually, neck pain is a very prevalent musculoskeletal ailment that is second only to low back pain as the most common cause of disability. Most occurrences of neck pain are nonspecific. Telerehabilitation is regarded as a potentially effective healthcare approach in this setting. This review aims to evaluate how a telerehabilitation-based intervention affected individuals with nonspecific neck pain (NNP) in terms of pain and disability.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and WanFang were consulted from inception to September 2023, with the inclusion of randomized controlled trials only. The experimental data were meta-analyzed using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis contained eight studies; there was no significant difference in pain improvement in patients with NNP by telerehabilitation compared to conventional care (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.28), but there was a significant effect on disability improvement (SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.78 to -0.03). Telerehabilitation demonstrated more significant improvements in pain (SMD = -1.16, 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.32) and disability (MD = -3.78, 95% CI: -5.29 to -2.27) compared to minimal or no intervention.

DISCUSSION

This study emphasizes the potential benefits of employing telerehabilitation in patients with NNP, especially in reducing pain intensity and improving disability. But additional study is required to fully grasp the potential of telerehabilitation in this field.

Mobile technologies for rehabilitation in non-specific spinal disorders: a systematic review of the efficacy and potential for implementation in low- and middle-income countries

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was primarily to identify the types of mHealth technologies for the rehabilitation of non-specific spinal disorders, second to evaluate their efficacy, and finally to determine their applicability in LMICs.

METHODS

Three databases (Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched for randomized controlled trials and clinical trials from January 2012 until December 2022. Studies were found eligible when using mHealth technologies for the rehabilitation of non-specific spinal disorders. To evaluate efficacy, the primary outcome was pain intensity, and the secondary outcomes were disability and quality of life. To evaluate the applicability in LMICs, information about financial and geographical accessibility, offline usability, and languages was extracted.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included comprising 1828 participants who suffer from non-specific low back pain (86.05%) and non-specific neck pain (13.95%). Fourteen distinct smartphone-based interventions and two sensor system interventions were found, with a duration ranging from four weeks to six months. All mHealth interventions demonstrated efficacy for the improvement of pain, disability and quality of life in non-specific spinal disorders, particularly low back pain. Five of the evaluated smartphone applications were free of charge accessible and had language features that could be adapted for use in LMICs.

CONCLUSION

mHealth interventions can be used and integrated into the conventional treatment of non-specific spinal disorders in rehabilitation. They have demonstrated efficacy and could be implemented in LMICs with minor adaptations to overcome language barriers and the absolute necessity of the internet.

The effect of exercise and education combination via telerehabilitation in patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A limited number of studies have investigated the effect of telerehabilitation in individuals with chronic neck pain (CNP).

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of holistic exercise and education combination via telerehabilitation on pain, disability, kinesiophobia, exercise adherence, quality of life and patient satisfaction in individuals with CNP.

METHODS

A two-armed, randomized controlled study was conducted with 40 participants with CNP. Patients were randomized into two groups: Telerehabilitation (TR) (n = 20) and Standard Rehabilitation (SR) (n = 20). The TR group was provided with exercise and education videos online. The same protocol was given to the SR group in the clinical setting. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after eight weeks of intervention. Satisfaction and usability levels of the TR group were assessed at week 8.

RESULTS

TR group demonstrated better improvement in function, quality of life (including bodily pain, general health, social function), kinesiophobia and exercise adherence. The TR group was not superior to the SR group in pain and other quality-of-life subscores. A vast majority of the TR group had high satisfaction and usability.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive rehabilitation via TR increases satisfaction and participation in patients with CNP. Besides, TR provides more positive effects on function and kinesiophobia. Further studies should focus on the impact of telerehabilitation on pain and quality of life in CNP with a long-term follow-up.

Psychological therapies delivered remotely for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain (pain lasting three months or more) is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. Common types (excluding headache) include back pain, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain. Access to traditional face-to-face therapies can be restricted by healthcare resources, geography, and cost. Remote technology-based delivery of psychological therapies has the potential to overcome treatment barriers. However, their therapeutic effectiveness compared to traditional delivery methods requires further investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of remotely-delivered psychological therapies compared to active control, waiting list, or treatment as usual for the management of chronic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 29 June 2022. We also searched clinical trials registers and reference lists. We conducted a citation search of included trials to identify any further eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs in adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic pain. Interventions included psychological therapies with recognisable psychotherapeutic content or based on psychological theory. Trials had to have delivered therapy remote from the therapist (e.g. Internet, smartphone application) and involve no more than 30% contact time with a clinician. Comparators included treatment as usual (including waiting-list controls) and active controls (e.g. education).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials (4924 participants) in the analyses. Twenty-five studies delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to participants, and seven delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Participants had back pain, musculoskeletal pain, opioid-treated chronic pain, mixed chronic pain, hip or knee osteoarthritis, spinal cord injury, fibromyalgia, provoked vestibulodynia, or rheumatoid arthritis. We assessed 25 studies as having an unclear or high risk of bias for selective reporting. However, across studies overall, risk of bias was generally low. We downgraded evidence certainty for primary outcomes for inconsistency, imprecision, and study limitations. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Adverse events were inadequately reported or recorded across studies. We report results only for studies in CBT here. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus treatment as usual (TAU) Pain intensity Immediately after treatment, CBT likely demonstrates a small beneficial effect compared to TAU (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.16; 20 studies, 3206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving CBT are probably more likely to achieve a 30% improvement in pain intensity compared to TAU (23% versus 11%; risk ratio (RR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.85; 5 studies, 1347 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They may also be more likely to achieve a 50% improvement in pain intensity (6% versus 2%; RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.66; 4 studies, 1229 participants), but the evidence is of low certainty. At follow-up, there is likely little to no difference in pain intensity between CBT and TAU (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.09; 8 studies, 959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence comparing CBT to TAU on achieving a 30% improvement in pain is very uncertain (40% versus 24%; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.53; 1 study, 69 participants). No evidence was available regarding a 50% improvement in pain. Functional disability Immediately after treatment, CBT may demonstrate a small beneficial improvement compared to TAU (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.22; 14 studies, 2672 participants; low-certainty evidence). At follow-up, there is likely little to no difference between treatments (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 3 studies, 461 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life Immediately after treatment, CBT may not have resulted in a beneficial effect on quality of life compared to TAU, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.11; 7 studies, 1423 participants). There is likely little to no difference between CBT and TAU on quality of life at follow-up (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.05; 3 studies, 352 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events Immediately after treatment, evidence about the number of people experiencing adverse events is very uncertain (34% in TAU versus 6% in CBT; RR 6.00, 95% CI 2.2 to 16.40; 1 study, 140 participants). No evidence was available at follow-up. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus active control Pain intensity Immediately after treatment, CBT likely demonstrates a small beneficial effect compared to active control (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.04; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.30; 1 study, 127 participants). No evidence was available for a 30% or 50% pain intensity improvement. Functional disability Immediately after treatment, there may be little to no difference between CBT and active control on functional disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.02; 2 studies, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (MD 3.40, 95% CI -1.15 to 7.95; 1 study, 127 participants). Quality of life Immediately after treatment, there is likely little to no difference in CBT and active control (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.66; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 1 study, 127 participants). Adverse events Immediately after treatment, the evidence comparing CBT to active control is very uncertain (2% versus 0%; RR 3.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.84; 1 study, 135 participants). No evidence was available at follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, evidence about remotely-delivered psychological therapies is largely limited to Internet-based delivery of CBT. We found evidence that remotely-delivered CBT has small benefits for pain intensity (moderate certainty) and functional disability (moderate to low certainty) in adults experiencing chronic pain. Benefits were not maintained at follow-up. Our appraisal of quality of life and adverse events outcomes post-treatment were limited by study numbers, evidence certainty, or both. We found limited research (mostly low to very low certainty) exploring other psychological therapies (i.e. ACT). More high-quality studies are needed to assess the broad translatability of psychological therapies to remote delivery, the different delivery technologies, treatment longevity, comparison with active control, and adverse events.

Digital self-care in the management of spine musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

to analyze the effectiveness of digital self-care in the management of pain and functional disability among people with spine musculoskeletal disorders. a systematic literature review, developed with the PRISMA checklist, of randomized clinical trials of people with spine musculoskeletal disorders and digital interventions accessed by means of computers, smartphones or other portable devices. Databases researched: National Library of Medicine, Excerpta Médica dataBASE, SciVerse Scopus, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, Science Citation Indexes, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Physiotherapy Evidence Database. The descriptive synthesis of the results and by means of meta-analyses (fixed-effects model) was performed with the Review Manager software. The methodological quality was evaluated with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. a total of 25 trials were selected (5,142 participants), which showed statistically significant improvements (p <0.05) in 54% (12/22) in the pain levels and 47% (10/21) in functional disability in the Intervention Group. The meta-analyses showed moderate effects on pain intensity and small effects on functional disability. There was a predominance of medium quality studies. the digital care interventions showed a beneficial result in pain intensity and in functional disability, mainly for chronic low back pain. Digital care emerges as promising to support self-management of the spine musculoskeletal conditions. PROSPERO registry number CRD42021282102.

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.