7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Interest in mHealth Among Patients With Low Back Pain: Cross-Sectional Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Digitally supported self-management tailored to an individual’s need, in addition to usual care, may reduce pain-related disability compared to usual care alone, and patients with low back pain (LBP) using mobile health (mHealth) solutions express positive experiences. Hence, implementing mHealth solutions designed to support self-management is desirable from a clinical and patient perspective. Easily accessible mHealth solutions that can support the self-management of patients with LBP are available, but interest may be subgroup specific. Understanding the characteristics and preferences of patients with LBP labeled as interested may help to reach relevant LBP patient groups and inform the development and implementation of effective interventions with mHealth for patients with LBP.

          Objective

          This study aims to explore the proportion of patients with LBP labeled as interested in testing an mHealth solution designed to support self-management in addition to usual care and to assess how these patients differ from those who were labeled as not interested.

          Methods

          This exploratory cross-sectional study analyzed demographic and patient-reported outcomes from the SpineData registry, a Danish registry of patients with LBP in an outpatient setting. Between February and December 2019, the SpineData registry was used to assess the preliminary eligibility of patients for a clinical trial (selfBACK). Patients were labeled as interested or uninterested depending on if they responded to an invitation to be tested for eligibility for the trial Outcomes were selected from the International Classification of Functioning core set of LBP using a clinical approach. Associations were assessed in a backward selection process, and the proportion of variance explained was assessed with pseudo- R 2 statistic.

          Results

          This study included 843 patients, with 181 (21%) individuals labeled as interested in participating in the selfBACK trial. Notably, the cohort labeled as interested differed from their uninterested counterparts in two key aspects: age (36-65 years: 116/181, 64.1% vs 347/662, 52.4%; P=.003) and smoking status (smokers: 22/181, 12.5% vs 174/662, 26.6%; P<.001). Those aged 36-65 years had higher odds of being labeled as interested compared to individuals aged 18-35 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.71) and those 65 years or older (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53-1.15). Nevertheless, age accounted for only a modest proportion of variance ( R 2=0.014). Smokers demonstrated lower odds of being labeled as interested (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.64), with smoking status explaining a similarly small proportion of variance ( R 2=0.019). Collectively, age and smoking status accounted for 3.3% of the variance.

          Conclusions

          Our investigation revealed that 181 (21%) individuals with LBP invited to participate in the mHealth solution trial for self-management expressed interest. Generally, the characteristics of those labeled as interested and uninterested were comparable. Of note, patients aged 36-65 years had a higher frequency of being labeled as interested compared to their younger and older counterparts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Oswestry Disability Index.

            The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) has become one of the principal condition-specific outcome measures used in the management of spinal disorders. This review is based on publications using the ODI identified from the authors' personal databases, the Science Citation Index, and hand searches of Spine and current textbooks of spinal disorders. To review the versions of this instrument, document methods by which it has been validated, collate data from scores found in normal and back pain populations, provide curves for power calculations in studies using the ODI, and maintain the ODI as a gold standard outcome measure. It has now been 20 years since its original publication. More than 200 citations exist in the Science Citation Index. The authors have a large correspondence file relating to the ODI, that is cited in most of the large textbooks related to spinal disorders. All the published versions of the questionnaire were identified. A systematic review of this literature was made. The various reports of validation were collated and related to a version. Four versions of the ODI are available in English and nine in other languages. Some published versions contain misprints, and many omit the scoring system. At least 114 studies contain usable data. These data provide both validation and standards for other users and indicate the power of the instrument for detecting change in sample populations. The ODI remains a valid and vigorous measure and has been a worthwhile outcome measure. The process of using the ODI is reviewed and should be the subject of further research. The receiver operating characteristics should be explored in a population with higher self-report disabilities. The behavior of the instrument is incompletely understood, particularly in sensitivity to real change.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

              The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Hum Factors
                JMIR Hum Factors
                JMIR Human Factors
                JMIR Human Factors
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2292-9495
                2024
                12 February 2024
                : 11
                : e48729
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Regional Health Research University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark
                [2 ] Department of Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Lillebaelt Hospital University Hospital of Southern Denmark Kolding Denmark
                [3 ] Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark
                [4 ] Medical Research Spine Centre of Southern Denmark University Hospital of Southern Denmark Middelfart Denmark
                [5 ] Research Unit of General Practice University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark
                [6 ] Department of Clinical Research University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Jonas Ammundsen Ipsen jonas.ammundsen.ipsen@ 123456rsyd.dk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1650-0531
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8436-1046
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5772-0127
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3866-856X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-6364
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5400-8847
                Article
                v11i1e48729
                10.2196/48729
                10897794
                38345837
                54f4c374-42e2-4239-9b91-c7fe5ab0418f
                ©Jonas Ammundsen Ipsen, Louise Fleng Sandal, Natalie Hong Siu Chang, Berit Schiøttz-Christensen, Karen Søgaard, Anders Hansen. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 12.02.2024.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 4 May 2023
                : 29 October 2023
                : 12 December 2023
                : 20 January 2024
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                low back pain,mhealth solutions,mobile health,characteristics,patient interest,transferability,representativeness

                Comments

                Comment on this article