Development and Testing of a Mobile App for Pain Management Among Cancer Patients Discharged From Hospital Treatment: Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer pain increases in discharged patients because of discontinued standard treatments and reductions in medication adherence. Motivated by the need for better pain management in discharged patients, we developed a mobile phone app (Pain Guard) to provide continuous treatment information and feedback to discharged cancer patients suffering from pain. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to design, construct, and test the Pain Guard app in patients managing cancer pain, evaluate the total remission rate of pain and the improvement in quality of life (QoL) to improve pain management for cancer pain patients, and assess patient acceptance of the app. METHODS: This randomized controlled double-arm study involved 58 patients with cancer pain symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned to a group receiving care through the Pain Guard app (n=31) or to a control group (n=27) who received only traditional pharmaceutical care. In a pretest, participants were rated using a baseline cancer pain assessment and QoL evaluation. During treatment, the consumption levels of analgesic drugs were recorded every week. After a 4-week study period, another round of cancer pain assessment and QoL evaluation was conducted. The system's usability, feasibility, app compliance, and satisfaction were also assessed. Our primary outcome was remission rate of pain, and secondary outcomes were medication adherence, improvements in QoL, frequency of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP), incidence of adverse reactions, and satisfaction of patients. RESULTS: All participants (N=58) successfully completed the study. There were no significant differences in baseline pain scores or baseline QoL scores between groups. At the end of the study, the rate of pain remission in the trial group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<.001). The frequency of BTcP in the app group was considerably lower than that in the control group (P<.001). The rate of medication adherence in the trial group was considerably higher than that in the control group (P<.001). Improvements in global QoL scores in the trial group were also significantly higher than those in the control group (P<.001). The incidence of adverse reactions in the trial group (7/31) was lower than that in the control group (12/27), especially constipation, with significant differences (P=.01). The 31 participants in the trial group completed a satisfaction survey regarding Pain Guard: 23 (74%) indicated that they were satisfied with receiving pharmaceutical care by Pain Guard, 5 (16%) indicated that they were somewhat satisfied, 2 (6%) indicated neutral feelings, and 1 (3%) indicated that they were somewhat dissatisfied; no participants indicated that they were very dissatisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Pain Guard was effective for the management of pain in discharged patients with cancer pain, and its operability was effective and easily accepted by patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry ChiCTR1800016066; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27153.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it