Engagement with Manage My Pain mobile health application among patients at the Transitional Pain Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mobile health platforms have become an important component of pain self-management programs and hundreds of mobile applications are commercially available for patients to monitor pain. However, few of these applications have been developed in collaboration with healthcare professionals or have been critically evaluated. Manage My Pain is a user-driven mobile health platform developed by ManagingLife in collaboration with clinician researchers. Manage My Pain allows patients to keep a "pain record" and supports communication of this information with clinicians. The current report describes a user engagement study of Manage My Pain among patients at the Transitional Pain Service (TPS) at Toronto General Hospital, a multidisciplinary clinic for patients at high risk of developing postsurgical pain. METHODS: Patients at the TPS were encouraged to register on Manage My Pain as one component of a larger, non-randomized prospective study of treatment predictors and treatment enhancement. Uptake of the application and rates of registration, use, and retention were tracked for 90 days. RESULTS: Of the 196 patients who consented to the larger study, 132 (67%) also provided consent to the Manage My Pain component, indicating that they found this to be an acceptable treatment adjunct, and 119 (61%) completed registration. Of those who used the app, 67.9% and 43.2% continued to use Manage My Pain beyond 30 and 90 days, respectively. On average, users engaged with the app for 93.14 days (SD = 151.9 days) logged an average of 47.39 total records (SD = 136.1). CONCLUSIONS: Manage My Pain was found acceptable by a majority of patients at an academic pain management program. Rates of user registration and retention were favorable compared to those reported by other applications. Further research is needed to develop strategies to retain users and maximize patient benefit.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".