MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288751873 · doi:10.1186/s40814-022-01113-0

App-based intervention among adolescents with persistent pain: a pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4288751873 on OpenAlexafffund
Erik Grasaas, Sølvi Helseth, Liv Fegran, Jennifer Stinson, Milada Cvancarova Småstuen, Chitra Lalloo, Kristin Haraldstad

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersUtdannings- og forskningsdepartementetUniversitetet i AgderHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationIntervention (counseling)AnxietyPhysical therapyMedicineSocial supportDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Persistent pain in adolescence adversely affects everyday life and is an important public health problem. The primary aim was to determine the feasibility of an 8-week app-based self-management intervention to reduce pain and improve health-related quality of life in a community-based population of adolescents with persistent pain. A secondary aim was to explore differences in health outcomes between the intervention and control groups. METHODS: app, which includes symptom tracking, goal setting, self-management strategies, and social support. The attention control group received a symptom tracking app. Feasibility was assessed as attrition rates and level of engagement (interactions with the app). The secondary outcomes included pain intensity, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, pain self-efficacy, perceived social support from friends, anxiety and depression, and patient global impression. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS. RESULTS: Demographic and baseline outcome variables did not differ between the 2 groups. No differences were found between the participants completing the study and those who withdrew. Twenty-eight adolescents completed the intervention as planned (62% attrition). Both groups had a low level of app engagement. Intention-to-treat analysis (n = 19 + 14) showed no significant differences in outcomes between groups. However, the large effect size (Cohen's d = .9) for depression suggested a lower depression score in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: High treatment attrition and low engagement indicate the need for changes in trial design in a full-scale randomized controlled trial to improve participant retention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The iCanCope with Pain Norway trial was retrospectively registered in Clinical Trials.gov (ID: NCT03551977 ). Registered 6 June 2018.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207