Comparison of a Mobile Health Electronic Visual Analog Scale App With a Traditional Paper Visual Analog Scale for Pain Evaluation: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.
digital health
eHealth
electronic visual analog scale
mHealth
mobile app
pain
reliability
symptom
visual analog scale
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 09 2020
17 09 2020
Historique:
received:
17
02
2020
accepted:
26
07
2020
revised:
09
07
2020
entrez:
17
9
2020
pubmed:
18
9
2020
medline:
2
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate quantification of pain in a clinical setting is vital. The use of an electronic pain scale enables data to be collected, analyzed, and utilized much faster compared with traditional paper-based scales. The advancement of smart technology in pediatric and adult pain evaluation may offer opportunities to introduce easy-to-use and reliable pain assessment methods within different clinical settings. If promptly introduced within different pediatric and adult pain clinic services, validated and easily accessible mobile health pain apps may lead to early pain detection, promoting improvement in patient's quality of life and leading to potentially less time off from school or work. This cross-sectional observational study aimed to investigate the interchangeability of an electronic visual analog scale (eVAS) app with a traditional paper visual analog scale (pVAS) among Australian children, adolescents, and adults for pain evaluation. Healthy participants (age range 10-75 years) were recruited from a sporting club and a secondary school in Melbourne (Australia). The data collection process involved application of pressure (8.5 kg/cm Overall, 109 healthy participants were recruited. Adults (mean age 42.43 years, SD 14.50 years) had excellent reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96). Children and adolescents (mean age 13.91 years, SD 2.89 years) had moderate-to-good intermethod and intramethod reliabilities, with an ICC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.87) and average ICC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.69-0.87), respectively. The eVAS app appears to be interchangeable compared with the traditional pVAS among children, adolescents, and adults. This pain evaluation method may offer new opportunities to introduce user-friendly and validated pain assessment apps for patients, clinicians, and allied health professionals.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Accurate quantification of pain in a clinical setting is vital. The use of an electronic pain scale enables data to be collected, analyzed, and utilized much faster compared with traditional paper-based scales. The advancement of smart technology in pediatric and adult pain evaluation may offer opportunities to introduce easy-to-use and reliable pain assessment methods within different clinical settings. If promptly introduced within different pediatric and adult pain clinic services, validated and easily accessible mobile health pain apps may lead to early pain detection, promoting improvement in patient's quality of life and leading to potentially less time off from school or work.
OBJECTIVE
This cross-sectional observational study aimed to investigate the interchangeability of an electronic visual analog scale (eVAS) app with a traditional paper visual analog scale (pVAS) among Australian children, adolescents, and adults for pain evaluation.
METHODS
Healthy participants (age range 10-75 years) were recruited from a sporting club and a secondary school in Melbourne (Australia). The data collection process involved application of pressure (8.5 kg/cm
RESULTS
Overall, 109 healthy participants were recruited. Adults (mean age 42.43 years, SD 14.50 years) had excellent reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96). Children and adolescents (mean age 13.91 years, SD 2.89 years) had moderate-to-good intermethod and intramethod reliabilities, with an ICC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.87) and average ICC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.69-0.87), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The eVAS app appears to be interchangeable compared with the traditional pVAS among children, adolescents, and adults. This pain evaluation method may offer new opportunities to introduce user-friendly and validated pain assessment apps for patients, clinicians, and allied health professionals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32940621
pii: v22i9e18284
doi: 10.2196/18284
pmc: PMC7530698
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e18284Informations de copyright
©Alexandra Turnbull, Dean Sculley, Carles Escalona-Marfil, Lluís Riu-Gispert, Jorge Ruiz-Moreno, Xavier Gironès, Andrea Coda. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 17.09.2020.
Références
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Aug 10;4(3):e97
pubmed: 27511612
Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Dec;25(12):1264-73
pubmed: 26507916
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2016 May;42(2):333-46
pubmed: 27133493
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011 Dec;35(12):2209-15
pubmed: 21689119
Pain Manag Nurs. 2014 Dec;15(4):909-18
pubmed: 24973799
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018 Jan;12(1):199-201
pubmed: 28539086
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S240-52
pubmed: 22588748
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2003 Apr;42(3):227-34
pubmed: 12739921
Pain Med. 2015 Oct;16(10):1982-92
pubmed: 26176297
Pain. 2003 Jul;104(1-2):343-51
pubmed: 12855344
J Med Internet Res. 2012 May 08;14(3):e70
pubmed: 22564332
J Health Psychol. 2017 Nov;22(13):1658-1667
pubmed: 26966092
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010 May;25(5):1388-93
pubmed: 20067907
Br J Anaesth. 2008 Jul;101(1):17-24
pubmed: 18487245
J Pain. 2016 Jun;17(6):678-84
pubmed: 26924379
Pain. 2001 Aug;93(2):173-83
pubmed: 11427329
Br J Pain. 2016 Aug;10(3):135-40
pubmed: 27583140
Pain Manag Nurs. 2015 Apr;16(2):112-20
pubmed: 25282384
Pain Res Manag. 2014 May-Jun;19(3):141-8
pubmed: 24712019
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Feb 12;22(2):e13468
pubmed: 32049063
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Pain. 2015 Dec;156(12):2607-15
pubmed: 26580680
Semin Reprod Med. 2018 Jan;36(1):59-65
pubmed: 30189452
Clin Rheumatol. 1987 Dec;6(4):510-7
pubmed: 3449302
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017 Aug;25(8):873-877
pubmed: 28645535
J Pediatr Health Care. 2013 Jul-Aug;27(4):284-92
pubmed: 22446036
Cognition. 2000 May 15;75(2):145-70
pubmed: 10771276
Neurobiol Aging. 2010 Mar;31(3):494-503
pubmed: 18513833
Interact J Med Res. 2016 Jan 14;5(1):e3
pubmed: 26769149
Pain. 2008 Jun;136(3):281-92
pubmed: 17723279
Pediatrics. 2010 Nov;126(5):e1168-98
pubmed: 20921070
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Aug 18;17(1):350
pubmed: 27538914
JAMA. 2016 Mar 8;315(10):1051-2
pubmed: 26954415
Child Care Health Dev. 2003 Jul;29(4):281-90
pubmed: 12823333
Clin J Pain. 2017 Aug;33(8):676-686
pubmed: 27898460
Clin J Pain. 2015 Jun;31(6):557-63
pubmed: 25370138
Eur J Pain. 2001;5(1):27-37
pubmed: 11394920
Pain. 2004 Feb;107(3):213-9
pubmed: 14736583
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Oct 28;15(10):e212
pubmed: 24165786
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Oct;47(10):731-740
pubmed: 28870142
Pain Res Manag. 2014 Sep-Oct;19(5):257-65
pubmed: 25000507
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2017 May 16;15(1):40
pubmed: 28511689
J Med Syst. 2015 May;39(5):51
pubmed: 25732083
J Rheumatol. 2007 Nov;34(11):2291-300
pubmed: 17937461