Article

Ecological momentary assessment for chronic pain in fibromyalgia using a smartphone: A randomized crossover study

European Journal of Pain (Impact Factor: 3.22). 07/2014; 18(6). DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00425.x

ABSTRACT Background
Daily diaries are a useful way of measuring fluctuations in pain-related symptoms. However, traditional diaries do not assure the gathering of data in real time, not solving the problem of retrospective assessment. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) by means of electronic diaries helps to improve repeated assessment. However, it is important to test its feasibility in specific populations in order to reach a wider number of people who could benefit from these procedures.

Methods
The present study compares the compliance and acceptability of an electronic diary running on a smartphone using a crossover design for a sample with a specific pain condition, fibromyalgia and low familiarity with technology. Forty-seven participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) paper diary – smartphone diary and (2) smartphone diary – paper diary, using each assessment method for 1 week.

Results
The findings of this study showed that the smartphone diary made it possible to gather more accurate and complete ratings. Besides, this method was well accepted by a sample of patients with fibromyalgia referred by a public hospital, with an important proportion of participants with low level of education and low familiarity with technology.

Conclusions
The findings of this study support the use of smartphones for EMA even in specific populations with a specific pain condition, fibromyalgia and with low familiarity with technology. These methods could help clinicians and researchers to gather more accurate ratings of relevant pain-related variables even in populations with low familiarity with technology.

8 Followers
 · 
91 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs; self-report assessments) are increasingly important in evaluating medical care and treatment efficacy. Electronic administration of PROs via computer is becoming widespread. This article reviews the literature addressing whether computer-administered tests are equivalent to their paper-and-pencil forms. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize 65 studies that directly assessed the equivalence of computer versus paper versions of PROs used in clinical trials. A total of 46 unique studies, evaluating 278 scales, provided sufficient detail to allow quantitative analysis. Among 233 direct comparisons, the average mean difference between modes averaged 0.2% of the scale range (e.g., 0.02 points on a 10-point scale), and 93% were within +/-5% of the scale range. Among 207 correlation coefficients between paper and computer instruments (typically intraclass correlation coefficients), the average weighted correlation was 0.90; 94% of correlations were at least 0.75. Because the cross-mode correlation (paper vs. computer) is also a test-retest correlation, with potential variation because of retest, we compared it to the within-mode (paper vs. paper) test-retest correlation. In four comparisons that evaluated both, the average cross-mode paper-to-computer correlation was almost identical to the within-mode correlation for readministration of a paper measure (0.88 vs. 0.91). Extensive evidence indicates that paper- and computer-administered PROs are equivalent.
    Value in Health 02/2008; 11(2):322-33. DOI:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The recent growth in diary and experience sampling research has increased research attention on how people change over time in natural settings. Often however, the measures in these studies were originally developed for studying between-person differences, and their sensitivity to within-person changes is usually unknown. Using a Generalizability Theory framework, the authors illustrate a procedure for developing reliable measures of change using a version of the Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1992) shortened for diary studies. Analyzing two data sets, one composed of 35 daily reports from 68 persons experiencing a stressful examination and another composed of daily reports from 164 persons over a typical 28-day period, we demonstrate that three-item measures of anxious mood, depressed mood, anger, fatigue, and vigor have appropriate reliability to detect within-person change processes.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 07/2006; 32(7):917-29. DOI:10.1177/0146167206287721 · 2.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our goal was to validate the Spanish version of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire used to measure the intensity of oncological pain and its impact on activities of daily living in patients with cancer. Patients with oncological pain were consecutively included in the study. These patients filled up the Spanish version of the BPI questionnaire (CBD) and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RCSL) during the inclusion visit and again after 3-5 days (patients with clinically stable oncological pain) or after one month (patients with unstable oncological pain). 126 patients were assessed; 85.1% of them had suffered some episode of irruptive pain 24 hours prior to their inclusion in the study. 86.5% of patients fully completed the questionnaire. The CBD showed mild to moderate correlations with the patients perception of pain severity and with the presence of tumor dissemination. The dimension of the RCSL displayed the highest correlation with the dimensions of the BPI ( and ). The internal consistency and the test-retest reliability between dimensions were good (0.87 and 0.89) and low to moderate (0.53 and 0.77), respectively. The CBD questionnaire was found to be a tool capable of detecting changes in pain intensity. The changes observed in the two CBD dimensions between study visits fairly reflected the patients perceived changes in pain intensity. The Spanish version of BPI is valid for measuring the intensity of oncological pain and its impact on activities of daily living in conditions of usual clinical practice.
    Medicina Clínica 01/2003; 120(2):52-9. · 1.25 Impact Factor