Development and Use of Mobile Messaging for Individuals With Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population studies show that musculoskeletal conditions are a leading contributor to the total burden of healthy life lost, second only to cancer and with a similar burden to cardiovascular disease. Prioritizing the delivery of effective treatments is necessary, and with the ubiquity of consumer smart devices, the use of digital health interventions is increasing. Messaging is popular and easy to use and has been studied for a range of health-related uses, including health promotion, encouragement of behavior change, and monitoring of disease progression. It may have a useful role to play in the management and self-management of musculoskeletal conditions. OBJECTIVE: Previous reviews on the use of messaging for people with musculoskeletal conditions have focused on synthesizing evidence of effectiveness from randomized controlled trials. In this review, our objective was to map the musculoskeletal messaging literature more broadly to identify information that may inform the design of future messaging interventions and summarize the current evidence of efficacy, effectiveness, and economics. METHODS: Following a prepublished protocol developed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, we conducted a comprehensive scoping review of the literature (2010-2022; sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO) related to SMS text messaging and app-based messaging for people with musculoskeletal conditions. We described our findings using tables, plots, and a narrative summary. RESULTS: We identified a total of 8328 papers for screening, of which 50 (0.6%) were included in this review (3/50, 6% previous reviews and 47/50, 94% papers describing 40 primary studies). Rheumatic diseases accounted for the largest proportion of the included primary studies (19/40, 48%), followed by studies on multiple musculoskeletal conditions or pain sites (10/40, 25%), back pain (9/40, 23%), neck pain (1/40, 3%), and "other" (1/40, 3%). Most studies (33/40, 83%) described interventions intended to promote positive behavior change, typically by encouraging increased physical activity and exercise. The studies evaluated a range of outcomes, including pain, function, quality of life, and medication adherence. Overall, the results either favored messaging interventions or had equivocal outcomes. While the theoretical underpinnings of the interventions were generally well described, only 4% (2/47) of the papers provided comprehensive descriptions of the messaging intervention design and development process. We found no relevant economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Messaging has been used for the care and self-management of a range of musculoskeletal conditions with generally favorable outcomes reported. However, with few exceptions, design considerations are poorly described in the literature. Further work is needed to understand and disseminate information about messaging content and message delivery characteristics, such as timing and frequency specifically for people with musculoskeletal conditions. Similarly, further work is needed to understand the economic effects of messaging and practical considerations related to implementation and sustainability. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048964.
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 | 0.021 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".