Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
Delivery Model Matters for Digital Interventions in Pain Self-Management: Mixed Methods Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Solberg Nes Lise, Børøsund Elin, Nordang Elise Flakk, Asbjørnsen Rikke Aune, Eide Hilde, Varsi Cecilie, Waxenberg Lori B, Weiss Karen E, Morrison Eleshia J, Støle Hanne Stavenes, Hoksnes Christine Marie Rygg, Kristjansdottir Ólöf B, Hagen Milada, Stubhaug Audun, Schreurs Karlein Mg
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions can improve access to and outreach of evidence-based support for people living with chronic pain. How best to deliver such interventions remains unclear, however, and although guided or blended care models show promise, digital interventions are primarily delivered without support or follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the use and effect of the evidence-based digital pain self-management intervention EPIO when (1) delivered through digital download without follow-up (ie, EPIONoFollowUp), compared with (2) delivery through a simple blended-care model (ie, EPIOBlendedCare), or care-as-usual controls.
METHODS: People (n=73) with chronic pain received access to the EPIO program through individual download (EPIONoFollowUp). Program use and outcome measures were collected over 12 months and compared with findings from a separate randomized controlled trial in which people with chronic pain (n=266) were assigned to receive EPIO through a simple blended care model (EPIOBlendedCare) or to a care-as-usual control group. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months and included pain interference (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]; primary outcome), pain severity (BPI), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), self-regulatory fatigue (Self-Regulatory Fatigue Scale-18), health-related quality of life (HRQoL; RAND 36-Item Health Survey), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and pain acceptance (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire-8). Generalized linear models for repeated measures were fitted to explore between-group differences over time. Interviews with the EPIONoFollowUp group (n=15) exploring perceived program experiences were analyzed using rapid analysis.
RESULTS: Participants (N=332) had a median age of 49 (IQR 39-55) years, were primarily women (271/332, 82%), and had a variety of pain conditions. Statistically significant between-group differences in favor of the EPIONoFollowUp group compared with the control group included improved HRQoL and pain acceptance and reduced pain catastrophizing. Intervention group comparison revealed only 1 significant between-group difference, for self-regulation, in favor of EPIOBlendedCare. Participants receiving the EPIONoFollowUp delivery model displayed lower program use, averaging 10 (IQR 3-24) days of use vs 30 (IQR 13-44) days for EPIOBlendedCare. Similarly, 23% (17/73) of the EPIONoFollowUp group participants completed ≥7 of 9 modules, compared with 62% (78/125) in EPIOBlendedCare. Higher education level was associated with significant improvements in pain severity, anxiety, HRQoL, and pain catastrophizing, as well as higher module completion, in the EPIONoFollowUp group but not in the EPIOBlendedCare group. Qualitative findings identified a preference for more follow-up, as well as positive changes in awareness, acceptance, and coping in the EPIONoFollowUp group.
CONCLUSIONS: The delivery model should be considered when providing access to digital self-management, and models with guidance appear to be the most helpful. When health care resources are limited, blended care delivery should likely be chosen for those who need it most, for example, those with lower education.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the use and effect of the evidence-based digital pain self-management intervention EPIO when (1) delivered through digital download without follow-up (ie, EPIONoFollowUp), compared with (2) delivery through a simple blended-care model (ie, EPIOBlendedCare), or care-as-usual controls.
METHODS: People (n=73) with chronic pain received access to the EPIO program through individual download (EPIONoFollowUp). Program use and outcome measures were collected over 12 months and compared with findings from a separate randomized controlled trial in which people with chronic pain (n=266) were assigned to receive EPIO through a simple blended care model (EPIOBlendedCare) or to a care-as-usual control group. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months and included pain interference (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]; primary outcome), pain severity (BPI), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), self-regulatory fatigue (Self-Regulatory Fatigue Scale-18), health-related quality of life (HRQoL; RAND 36-Item Health Survey), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and pain acceptance (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire-8). Generalized linear models for repeated measures were fitted to explore between-group differences over time. Interviews with the EPIONoFollowUp group (n=15) exploring perceived program experiences were analyzed using rapid analysis.
RESULTS: Participants (N=332) had a median age of 49 (IQR 39-55) years, were primarily women (271/332, 82%), and had a variety of pain conditions. Statistically significant between-group differences in favor of the EPIONoFollowUp group compared with the control group included improved HRQoL and pain acceptance and reduced pain catastrophizing. Intervention group comparison revealed only 1 significant between-group difference, for self-regulation, in favor of EPIOBlendedCare. Participants receiving the EPIONoFollowUp delivery model displayed lower program use, averaging 10 (IQR 3-24) days of use vs 30 (IQR 13-44) days for EPIOBlendedCare. Similarly, 23% (17/73) of the EPIONoFollowUp group participants completed ≥7 of 9 modules, compared with 62% (78/125) in EPIOBlendedCare. Higher education level was associated with significant improvements in pain severity, anxiety, HRQoL, and pain catastrophizing, as well as higher module completion, in the EPIONoFollowUp group but not in the EPIOBlendedCare group. Qualitative findings identified a preference for more follow-up, as well as positive changes in awareness, acceptance, and coping in the EPIONoFollowUp group.
CONCLUSIONS: The delivery model should be considered when providing access to digital self-management, and models with guidance appear to be the most helpful. When health care resources are limited, blended care delivery should likely be chosen for those who need it most, for example, those with lower education.