Mobile Health App and Web Platform (eDOL) for Medical Follow-Up of Patients With Chronic Pain: Cohort Study Involving the French eDOL National Cohort After 1 Year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects approximately 30% of the general population, severely degrades quality of life and professional life, and leads to additional health care costs. Moreover, the medical follow-up of patients with chronic pain remains complex and provides only fragmentary data on painful daily experiences. This situation makes the management of patients with chronic pain less than optimal and may partly explain the lack of effectiveness of current therapies. Real-life monitoring of subjective and objective markers of chronic pain using mobile health (mHealth) programs could better characterize patients, chronic pain, pain medications, and daily impact to help medical management. OBJECTIVE: This cohort study aimed to assess the ability of our mHealth tool (eDOL) to collect extensive real-life medical data from chronic pain patients after 1 year of use. The data collected in this way would provide new epidemiological and pathophysiological data on chronic pain. METHODS: A French national cohort of patients with chronic pain treated at 18 pain clinics has been established and followed up using mHealth tools. This cohort makes it possible to collect the determinants and repercussions of chronic pain and their evolutions in a real-life context, taking into account all environmental events likely to influence chronic pain. The patients were asked to complete several questionnaires, body schemes, and weekly meters, and were able to interact with a chatbot and use educational modules on chronic pain. Physicians could monitor their patients' progress in real time via an online platform. RESULTS: The cohort study included 1427 patients and analyzed 1178 patients. The eDOL tool was able to collect various sociodemographic data; specific data for characterizing pain disorders, including body scheme; data on comorbidities related to chronic pain and its psychological and overall impact on patients' quality of life; data on drug and nondrug therapeutics and their benefit-to-risk ratio; and medical or treatment history. Among the patients completing weekly meters, 49.4% (497/1007) continued to complete them after 3 months of follow-up, and the proportion stabilized at 39.3% (108/275) after 12 months of follow-up. Overall, despite a fairly high attrition rate over the follow-up period, the eDOL tool collected extensive data. This amount of data will increase over time and provide a significant volume of health data of interest for future research involving the epidemiology, care pathways, trajectories, medical management, sociodemographic characteristics, and other aspects of patients with chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates that the mHealth tool eDOL is able to generate a considerable volume of data concerning the determinants and repercussions of chronic pain and their evolutions in a real-life context. The eDOL tool can incorporate numerous parameters to ensure the detailed characterization of patients with chronic pain for future research and pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04880096; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04880096.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".