These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Impact of 25 Years of Mobile Health Tools for Pain Management in Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review.
    Author: Shi JL, Sit RW.
    Journal: J Med Internet Res; 2024 Aug 16; 26():e59358. PubMed ID: 39150748.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]