Feasibility Trial of an eHealth Intervention for Health-Related Quality of Life: Implications for Managing Patients with Chronic Pain during the COVID-19 Pandemic

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.

Effects of non-pharmacological interventions on sleep in chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Low back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide and adults with chronic low back pain (≥12weeks) commonly experience sleep impairments (e.g., insomnia, sleep disturbance). This study examined the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on sleep in adults with chronic low back pain. Six databases (PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL) were searched from inception to 2 June 2021 for randomised controlled trials. Pairwise random-effect meta-analysis estimated standardised mean difference (Hedges' g) at end-of-intervention follow-up. Nineteen studies (participants: 1348) were included. When compared to control, non-pharmacological interventions improved sleep (g [95%CI]: -0.33 [-0.56, -0.11], p = 0.004, small effect, I² = 59.3%; n = 879; studies: n = 13; GRADE: low). This small improvement in sleep was associated with a moderate reduction in pain intensity (-0.69 [-1.00, -0.38], p < 0.001, I² = 75.3%; n = 812; studies: n = 12; GRADE: very low) and no changes in back-related disability (-0.50 [-1.13, 0.14], p = 0.129, I² = 91.4%; n = 517; studies: n = 6; GRADE: low). Notably, all eligible studies reported interventions primarily aimed to reduce pain, although our search criteria were not limited to pain interventions. Key limitations were data paucity and high risk of bias. Future research should investigate sleep-based interventions (i.e., those purposely designed to improve sleep) using subjective and objective measures across a range of sleep domains (CRD42021275227).

Evaluation of content validity and feasibility of the eVISualisation of physical activity and pain (eVIS) intervention for patients with chronic pain participating in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain negatively influences most aspects of life, including aerobic capacity and physical function. The "eVISualisation of physical activity and pain" (eVIS) intervention was developed to facilitate individualized physical activity for treatment in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs (IPRPs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the content validity and feasibility of the eVIS intervention prior to an effectiveness trial.

METHODS

In order to determine pre-clinical content validity, experts (n = 10) (patients, caregivers, researchers) participated in three assessment rounds using a Likert-scale survey where relevance, simplicity, and safety were rated, whereafter the intervention was revised. Item-content validity index (I-CVI), average, and overall CVI were used to quantify ratings. To determine content validity and feasibility in the clinical context, experts (n = 8) (patients and physiotherapists) assessed eVIS after a 2-3-week test trial, with the feasibility aspects acceptability, demand, implementation, limited efficacy-testing, and practicality in focus. Additional expert interviews (with physiotherapists, physicians) were conducted on two incomplete areas.

RESULTS

The intervention was iteratively revised and refined throughout the study. After three assessment and revision rounds, the I-CVI ratings for relevance, simplicity, and safety ranged between 0.88 and 1.00 (≥0.78) in most items, giving eVIS "excellent" content validity. In the IPRP context, the intervention emerged as valid and feasible. Additional interviews further contributed to its content validity and clinical feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed domains and features of the eVIS intervention are deemed valid in its content and feasible in the IPRP context. The consecutive step-by-step evaluation process enabled careful intervention development with revisions to be made in close collaboration with stakeholders. Findings implicate a robust base ahead of the forthcoming effectiveness trial.

Unmet Needs in Endometriosis: Lessons from COVID-19

BACKGROUND

One key challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic is health care access. Government-imposed restrictions and increased health care burden have induced considerable changes to health care services and their delivery. These are likely to have substantially impacted those with chronic conditions such as endometriosis, as they require sustained management.

AIMS

Our objective was to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the experience of people with endometriosis, and to use this information to inform health care delivery for the management of chronic conditions in a COVID-normal future.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Invitation to participate in an open-ended online survey through social media of Australian endometriosis organizations and the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne. Surveys were analyzed qualitatively through template analysis.

RESULTS

Of 576 surveys returned, 329 reported COVID-19 having an impact. Fifteen areas of impact were identified and grouped under three domains: impact on access to health care services, impact on daily life, and impact of isolation. Common impacts included reduced access to health care services, improved symptom management due to decreased day-to-day travel and work-from-home arrangements, and both positive and negative views of telehealth services.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides in-depth insight into the experiences of people with endometriosis during the COVID-19 pandemic, confirming previous studies' findings and offering insight into discrepancies between the Australian Healthcare system categorization of surgeries as "non-essential," and patient views of these procedures as "essential" to their well-being. Results may inform future adjustments to health care services and delivery to improve the lives of people with endometriosis, and by extension, other chronic conditions.

Optimizing chronic pain management through patient engagement with quality of life measures: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) represents a new approach for guiding chronic pain management because it is patient-centered and more likely to be understood and accepted by patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the value and utility of an eHealth intervention for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) that was primarily based on HRQOL measures and to measure the clinical outcomes associated with its use.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry) using participants screened from November 2019 through February 2021. A total of 331 registry participants within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia met the eligibility criteria, which included having CLBP and HRQOL deficits. Almost three-fourths of the participants were enrolled after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants were randomized to an eHealth intervention for HRQOL or wait list control. The primary outcome measures involved HRQOL based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), including the SPADE cluster (Sleep disturbance, Pain interference with activities, Anxiety, Depression, and low Energy/fatigue) and each of its five component scales. Secondary outcome measures involved low back pain intensity and back-related functioning. Changes over time for each outcome measure reported by participants in each treatment group were compared utilizing the student's t-test for statistical significance and Cohen's d statistic for clinical importance. Outcomes were reported as between-group differences in change scores and the d statistic, with positive values favoring the experimental treatment group.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the experimental and control treatment groups for changes over time in any primary outcome measure. The d statistic (95% confidence interval) for the difference between the experimental and control treatment groups on the SPADE cluster was 0.04 (-0.18-0.25). The corresponding d statistics for the SPADE scales ranged from -0.06 (-0.27 to 0.16) for anxiety to 0.11 (-0.10 to 0.33) for sleep disturbance. There were also no significant or clinically important differences between the experimental and control treatment groups on the secondary outcome measures. Additionally, in subgroup analyses involving participants treated by osteopathic vs allopathic physicians, no significant interaction effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The eHealth intervention studied herein did not achieve statistically significant or clinically important improvements in any of the primary or secondary outcome measures. However, the validity and generalizability of the findings may have been limited by the unforeseen onset and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic shortly after beginning the trial.

Digital Health Technologies for Long-term Self-management of Osteoporosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Osteoporosis is the fourth most common chronic disease worldwide. The adoption of preventative measures and effective self-management interventions can help improve bone health. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies can play a key role in the care and self-management of patients with osteoporosis.

Objective

This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the currently available mHealth apps targeting osteoporosis self-management, aiming to determine the current status, gaps, and challenges that future research could address, as well as propose appropriate recommendations.

Methods

A systematic review of all English articles was conducted, in addition to a survey of all apps available in iOS and Android app stores as of May 2021. A comprehensive literature search (2010 to May 2021) of PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore was conducted. Articles were included if they described apps dedicated to or useful for osteoporosis (targeting self-management, nutrition, physical activity, and risk assessment) delivered on smartphone devices for adults aged ≥18 years. Of the 32 articles, a random effects meta-analysis was performed on 13 (41%) studies of randomized controlled trials, whereas the 19 (59%) remaining studies were only included in the narrative synthesis as they did not provide enough data.

Results

In total, 3906 unique articles were identified. Of these 3906 articles, 32 (0.81%) articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in depth. The 32 studies comprised 14,235 participants, of whom, on average, 69.5% (n=9893) were female, with a mean age of 49.8 (SD 17.8) years. The app search identified 23 relevant apps for osteoporosis self-management. The meta-analysis revealed that mHealth-supported interventions resulted in a significant reduction in pain (Hedges g −1.09, 95% CI −1.68 to −0.45) and disability (Hedges g −0.77, 95% CI −1.59 to 0.05). The posttreatment effect of the digital intervention was significant for physical function (Hedges g 2.54, 95% CI −4.08 to 4.08) but nonsignificant for well-being (Hedges g 0.17, 95% CI −1.84 to 2.17), physical activity (Hedges g 0.09, 95% CI −0.59 to 0.50), anxiety (Hedges g −0.29, 95% CI −6.11 to 5.53), fatigue (Hedges g −0.34, 95% CI −5.84 to 5.16), calcium (Hedges g −0.05, 95% CI −0.59 to 0.50), vitamin D intake (Hedges g 0.10, 95% CI −4.05 to 4.26), and trabecular score (Hedges g 0.06, 95% CI −1.00 to 1.12).

Conclusions

Osteoporosis apps have the potential to support and improve the management of the disease and its symptoms; they also appear to be valuable tools for patients and health professionals. However, most of the apps that are currently available lack clinically validated evidence of their efficacy and focus on a limited number of symptoms. A more holistic and personalized approach within a cocreation design ecosystem is needed.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021269399; https://tinyurl.com/2sw454a9

COVID-19 Pandemic Increases the Impact of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

In March 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as a global issue. To reduce the spread of this disease, health safety pathways were implemented worldwide. These extraordinary measures changed people's lifestyles, e.g., by being forced to isolate, and in many cases, to work remotely from home. Low back pain (LBP), the most common cause of disability worldwide, is often a symptom of COVID-19. Moreover, it is often associated with different lifestyle features (type of job, physical activity, body weight). Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on LBP intensity and prevalence compared with LBP rates before the pandemic. A systematic search was performed on Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central. Overall, eight studies with 2365 patients were included in the analysis. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool to evaluate the risk of bias: six studies (75%) were at moderate risk of bias and two studies (25%) were at low risk of bias. These studies showed an increase in both the prevalence and intensity of LBP during the COVID-19 lockdown.

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.

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.

The health-related quality of life of patients with musculoskeletal disorders after the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

To verify changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with musculoskeletal disorders after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to assess the relationship between the patients’ change in several activities of daily living and in the HRQOL to discover factors related to the deterioration in HRQOL.

Methods

A multi-centre cross-sectional questionnaire survey was administered between November 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, in Japan. The participants included those who visited the orthopaedics clinic within the survey period and had experienced the first and second waves of COVID-19 in Japan and the first stay-at-home order issued by the government. Patients’ HRQOL at the two different time points (pre-outbreak and post-second wave of COVID-19) was assessed with the EuroQoL-5 dimensions 5-level (EQ-5D).

Results

The survey was completed by 1254 patients (average age: 52.5 ± 21.9 years; 644 women). Among them, 431 patients (34.3%) reported a decrease in the EQ-5D index after the pandemic. The largest decrease was in the pain domain followed by the mobility domain. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the patients with decreased regular exercise habits were significantly related to deterioration in HRQOL compared with those with stable regular exercise (adjusted odds ratio = 1.76, p < 0.001) independently from age, sex, and change of symptoms.

Conclusions

Up to 35% of patients with musculoskeletal disorders reported deterioration of HRQOL after the COVID-19 pandemic. Pain and mobility rather than anxiety were the two leading factors of the HRQOL decrease. The decrease in regular exercise was related to the HRQOL decrease.

eHealth Interventions to Treat Substance Use in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Substance use during pregnancy is associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes; eHealth interventions offer a potential accessible treatment option. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for the treatment of substance use during pregnancy. A comprehensive search of PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and Embase databases was conducted from May 2020 to April 2021. The protocol for this study was registered with Prospero (CRD42020205186) through the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Two independent reviewers completed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. RCTs were included if they reported: (a) administration of an eHealth intervention for (b) substance use outcomes, among (c) pregnant individuals. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA) was used to calculate pooled effect sizes (Odds Ratio) to determine the effect of eHealth interventions on substance use outcomes. Six studies were identified with substance use outcomes that included: smoking (n = 3), alcohol (n = 2), and other (n = 1). eHealth interventions were delivered through the internet (n = 1), computer (n = 3), telephone (n = 1), and text (n = 1). Results suggested that eHealth interventions significantly reduced substance use in pregnant individuals compared to controls (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.65, p = 0.013). eHealth interventions offer a promising and accessible treatment option to reduce substance use during pregnancy. This work was supported by the generous donors of the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation, the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program (CCHCSP), the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé.

The Norwegian PROMIS-29: psychometric validation in the general population for Norway

Background

The Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System profile instruments include “high information” items drawn from large item banks following the application of modern psychometric criteria. The shortest adult profile, PROMIS-29, looks set to replace existing short-form instruments in research and clinical practice. The objective of this study was to undertake the first psychometric evaluation of the Norwegian PROMIS-29, following a postal survey of a random sample of 12,790 Norwegians identified through the National Registry of the Norwegian Tax Administration. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess structural validity. Fit to the Rasch partial credit model and differential item functioning (DIF) were assessed in relation to age, gender, and education. PROMIS-29 scores were compared to those for the EQ-5D-5L and the Self-assessed Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ), for purposes of assessing validity based on a priori hypotheses.

Results

There were 3200 (25.9%) respondents with a mean age (SD) of 51 (20.7, range 18 to 97 years) and 55% were female. The PROMIS-29 showed satisfactory structural validity and acceptable fit to Rasch model including unidimensionality, and measurement invariance across age and education levels. One pain interference item had uniform DIF for gender but splitting gave satisfactory fit. Domain reliability estimates ranged from 0.85 to 0.95. Correlations between PROMIS-29 domain, SCQ and EQ-5D scores were largely as expected, the largest being for scores assessing very similar aspects of health.

Conclusions

The Norwegian version of the PROMIS-29 is a reliable and valid generic self-reported measure of health in the Norwegian general population. The instrument is recommended for further application, but the analysis should be replicated and responsiveness to change assessed in future studies before it can be recommended for clinical and health services evaluation in Norway.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-021-00357-3.

Patient-centered care or osteopathic manipulative treatment as mediators of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain

CONTEXT

Patient-centered care is often considered a characteristic of osteopathic medicine, in addition to the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in such musculoskeletal conditions as low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine if patient-centered care or OMT are mediators of the clinical outcomes of osteopathic medicine in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A comparative effectiveness study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry). Eligible patients met the diagnostic criteria recommended by the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain and completed four consecutive quarterly encounters between April 2016 and November 2020. The Consultation and Relational Empathy instrument for patient-centered care was used at the baseline encounter and OMT use was measured at the final encounter. The clinical outcome measures included low back pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10, back-related functioning on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and pain impact on the National Institutes of Health Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain (NIH-MDS). A parallel multiple mediator model was used to compute the direct and indirect effects of osteopathic medicine in achieving each of the three clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The 404 study patients had a mean age of 52.2 years (standard deviation, 13.1 years) and 288 (71.3%) were female. The 88 (21.8%) patients treated by osteopathic physicians reported more favorable scores for patient-centered care (mean, 41.3; 95% CI 39.0-43.5) than patients treated by allopathic physicians (mean, 38.0; 95% CI 36.8-39.3) (p=0.02). Fifty-six (63.6%) patients treated by osteopathic physicians used OMT. The age- and sex-adjusted outcomes for patients of osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians across all four encounters were: mean, 5.4; 95% CI 5.0-5.7 vs. mean, 5.9; 95% CI 5.7-6.1 on the NRS for pain intensity (p=0.01); mean, 11.3; 95% CI 10.1-12.6 vs. mean, 14.0; 95% CI 13.3-14.7 on the RMDQ for back-related disability (p<0.001); and mean, 26.8; 95% CI 24.9-28.7 vs. mean, 30.1; 95% CI 29.1-31.1 on the NIH-MDS for pain impact (p=0.002). Patient-centered care did not mediate any outcome of osteopathic medicine, whereas OMT mediated better outcomes in low back pain intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

This appears to be the first study to simultaneously address both patient-centered care and OMT as potential mediators of the effect of osteopathic medicine in treating chronic pain. Patient-centered care did not mediate the effects of osteopathic medicine and OMT only mediated outcomes relating to low back pain intensity. More research is needed to identify other aspects of osteopathic medicine that mediate its beneficial effects in patients with chronic low back pain.