Acceptability, Effectiveness, and Roles of mHealth Applications in Supporting Cancer Pain Self-Management: Integrative Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Cancer pain remains highly prevalent and persistent throughout survivorship, and it is crucial to investigate the potential of leveraging the advanced features of mobile health (mHealth) apps to empower individuals to self-manage their pain. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to comprehensively understand the acceptability, users' experiences, and effectiveness of mHealth apps in supporting cancer pain self-management. METHODS: We conducted an integrative review following Souza and Whittemore and Knafl's 6 review processes. Literature was searched in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, and Embase, from 2013 to 2023. Keywords including "cancer patients," "pain," "self-management," "mHealth applications," and relevant synonyms were used in the search. The Johns Hopkins research evidence appraisal tool was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. A narrative synthesis was conducted to analyze the extracted data. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included, with the overall quality rated as high (n=15) to good (n=5). Using mHealth apps to monitor and manage pain was acceptable for most patients with cancer. The internal consistency of the mHealth in measuring pain was 0.96. The reported daily assessment or engagement rate ranged from 61.9% to 76.8%. All mHealth apps were designed for multimodal interventions. Participants generally had positive experiences using pain apps, rating them as enjoyable and user-friendly. In addition, 6 studies reported significant improvements in health outcomes, including enhancement in pain remission (severity and intensity), medication adherence, and a reduced frequency of breakthrough pain. The most frequently highlighted roles of mHealth apps included pain monitoring, tracking, reminders, education facilitation, and support coordination. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth apps are effective and acceptable in supporting pain self-management. They offer a promising multi-model approach for patients to monitor, track, and manage their pain. These findings provide evidence-based insights for leveraging mHealth apps to support cancer pain self-management. More high-quality studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of digital technology-based interventions for cancer pain self-management and to identify the facilitators and barriers to their implementation in real-world practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».