22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Integration of Mobile Health Technology in the Treatment of Chronic Pain : A Critical Review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This article provides a critical overview and best-evidence synthesis of the use of mobile health (mHealth) technology among persons with chronic pain and their health care providers and examines the future benefits and barriers of implementing mHealth technology in clinical care. We critically review articles about electronic pain diaries, pain assessment programs, text messaging, and smartphone pain apps for management of persons with pain. Also presented are findings on the utility of activity trackers and use of telehealth to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy. Finally, barriers, study gaps, and future challenges of incorporating mobile technology for chronic pain are discussed. Although the future of mHealth technology and telemedicine in clinical practice is promising, this critical review highlights the need for rigorous studies to establish an association of the use of mHealth technology with improved quality of life, functional autonomy, and decreased hospital use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey.

          The context in which patients consume health information has changed dramatically with diffusion of the Internet, advances in telemedicine, and changes in media health coverage. The objective of this study was to provide nationally representative estimates for health-related uses of the Internet, level of trust in health information sources, and preferences for cancer information sources. Data from the Health Information National Trends Survey were used. A total of 6369 persons 18 years or older were studied. The main outcome measures were online health activities, levels of trust, and source preference. Analyses indicated that 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7%-64.3%) of the US adult population in 2003 reported ever going online, with 63.7% (95% CI, 61.7%-65.8%) of the online population having looked for health information for themselves or others at least once in the previous 12 months. Despite newly available communication channels, physicians remained the most highly trusted information source to patients, with 62.4% (95% CI, 60.8%-64.0%) of adults expressing a lot of trust in their physicians. When asked where they preferred going for specific health information, 49.5% (95% CI, 48.1%-50.8%) reported wanting to go to their physicians first. When asked where they actually went, 48.6% (95% CI, 46.1%-51.0%) reported going online first, with only 10.9% (95% CI, 9.5%-12.3%) going to their physicians first. The Health Information National Trends Survey data portray a tectonic shift in the ways in which patients consume health and medical information, with more patients looking for information online before talking with their physicians.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce.

            Common pain conditions appear to have an adverse effect on work, but no comprehensive estimates exist on the amount of productive time lost in the US workforce due to pain. To measure lost productive time (absence and reduced performance due to common pain conditions) during a 2-week period. Cross-sectional study using survey data from the American Productivity Audit (a telephone survey that uses the Work and Health Interview) of working adults between August 1, 2001, and July 30, 2002. Random sample of 28 902 working adults in the United States. Lost productive time due to common pain conditions (arthritis, back, headache, and other musculoskeletal) expressed in hours per worker per week and calculated in US dollars. Thirteen percent of the total workforce experienced a loss in productive time during a 2-week period due to a common pain condition. Headache was the most common (5.4%) pain condition resulting in lost productive time. It was followed by back pain (3.2%), arthritis pain (2.0%), and other musculoskeletal pain (2.0%). Workers who experienced lost productive time from a pain condition lost a mean (SE) of 4.6 (0.09) h/wk. Workers who had a headache had a mean (SE) loss in productive time of 3.5 (0.1) h/wk. Workers who reported arthritis or back pain had mean (SE) lost productive times of 5.2 (0.25) h/wk. Other common pain conditions resulted in a mean (SE) loss in productive time of 5.5 (0.22) h/wk. Lost productive time from common pain conditions among active workers costs an estimated 61.2 billion dollars per year. The majority (76.6%) of the lost productive time was explained by reduced performance while at work and not work absence. Pain is an inordinately common and disabling condition in the US workforce. Most of the pain-related lost productive time occurs while employees are at work and is in the form of reduced performance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patients' use of the Internet for medical information.

              To determine the percentage of patients enrolled in a primary care practice who use the Internet for health information, to describe the types of information sought, to evaluate patients' perceptions of the quality of this information, and to determine if patients who use the Internet for health information discuss this with their doctors. Self-administered mailed survey. Patients from a primary care internal medicine private practice. Randomly selected patients ( N=1,000) were mailed a confidential survey between December 1999 and March 2000. The response rate was 56.2%. Of the 512 patients who returned the survey, 53.5% (274) stated that they used the Internet for medical information. Those using the Internet for medical information were more educated ( P <.001) and had higher incomes ( P <.001). Respondents used the Internet for information on a broad range of medical topics. Sixty percent felt that the information on the Internet was the "same as" or "better than" information from their doctors. Of those using the Internet for health information, 59% did not discuss this information with their doctor. Neither gender, education level, nor age less than 60 years was associated with patients sharing their Web searches with their physicians. However, patients who discussed this information with their doctors rated the quality of information higher than those who did not share this information with their providers. Primary care providers should recognize that patients are using the World Wide Web as a source of medical and health information and should be prepared to offer suggestions for Web-based health resources and to assist patients in evaluating the quality of medical information available on the Internet.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
                Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1098-7339
                2017
                2017
                : 42
                : 4
                : 488-498
                Article
                10.1097/AAP.0000000000000621
                28570436
                da4f7e78-4279-44ed-9f48-a11ad76a951b
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article