Digital health in pain assessment, diagnosis, and management: Overview and perspectives

Managing pain is essential for social, psychological, physical, and economic reasons. It is also a human right with a growing incidence of untreated and under-treated pain globally. Barriers to diagnosing, assessing, treating, and managing pain are complicated, subjective, and driven by patient, healthcare provider, payer, policy, and regulatory challenges. In addition, conventional treatment methods pose their own challenges including the subjectivity of assessment, lack of therapeutic innovation over the last decade, opioid use disorder and financial access to treatment. Digital health innovations hold much promise in providing complementary solutions to traditional medical interventions and may reduce cost and speed up recovery or adaptation. There is a growing evidence base for the use of digital health in pain assessment, diagnosis, and management. The challenge is not only to develop new technologies and solutions, but to do this within a framework that supports health equity, scalability, socio-cultural consideration, and evidence-based science. The extensive limits to physical personal interaction during the Covid-19 pandemic 2020/21 has proven the possible role of digital health in the field of pain medicine. This paper provides an overview of the use of digital health in pain management and argues for the use of a systemic framework in evaluating the efficacy of digital health solutions

Digital Scientific Platform for Independent Content in Neurology: Rigorous Quality Guideline Development and Implementation

BackgroundDigital communication has emerged as a major source of scientific and medical information for health care professionals. There is a need to set up an effective and reliable methodology to assess and monitor the quality of content that is published on the internet. ObjectiveThe aim of this project was to develop content quality guidelines for Neurodiem, an independent scientific information platform dedicated to neurology for health care professionals and neuroscientists. These content quality guidelines are intended to be used by (1) content providers as a framework to meet content quality standards and (2) reviewers as a tool for analyzing and scoring quality of content. MethodsSpecific scientific criteria were designed using a 5-point scale to measure the quality of curated and original content published on the website: for Summaries, (1) source reliability and topic relevance for neurologists, (2) structure, and (3) scientific and didactic value; for Congress highlights, (1) relevance of congress selection, (2) congress coverage based on the original program, and (3) scientific and didactic value of individual abstracts; for Expert points of view and talks, (1) credibility (authorship) and topic relevance for neurologists, (2) scientific and didactic value, and (3) reliability (references) and format. The criteria were utilized on a monthly basis and endorsed by an independent scientific committee of widely recognized medical experts in neurology. ResultsSummary content quality for the 3 domains (reliability and relevance, structure, and scientific and didactic value) increased in the second month after the implementation of the guidelines. The domain scientific and didactic value had a mean score of 8.20/10. Scores for the domains reliability and relevance (8-9/10) and structure (45-55/60) showed that the maintenance of these 2 quality items over time was more challenging. Talks (either in the format of interviews or slide deck–supported scientific presentations) and expert point of view demonstrated high quality after the implementation of the content quality guidelines that was maintained over time (15-25/25). ConclusionsOur findings support that content quality guidelines provide both (1) a reliable framework for generating independent high-quality content that addresses the educational needs of neurologists and (2) are an objective evaluation tool for improving and maintaining scientific quality level. The use of these criteria and this scoring system could serve as a standard and reference to build an editorial strategy and review process for any medical news or platforms

Patient and Physician Satisfaction with Analgesic Treatment: Findings from the Analgesic Treatment for Cancer Pain in Southeast Asia (ACE) Study

Aim. The aim of this study was to examine patients' and physicians' satisfaction, and concordance of patient-physician satisfaction with patients' pain control status. Methods. This cross-sectional observational study involved 465 adults prescribed analgesics for cancer-related pain from 22 sites across Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Pain intensity, pain control satisfaction, and adequacy of analgesics for pain control were documented using questionnaires. Results. Most patients (84.4%) had stage III or IV cancer. On a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worse pain), patients' mean worst pain intensity over 24 hours was 4.76 (SD 2.47). More physicians (19.0%) than patients (8.0%) reported dissatisfaction with patient's pain control. Concordance of patient-physician satisfaction was low (weighted kappa 0.36; 95% CI 0.03-0.24). Most physicians (71.2%) found analgesics to be adequate for pain control. Patients' and physicians' satisfaction with pain control and physician-assessed analgesic adequacy were significantly different across countries (P<0.001 for all). Conclusions. Despite pain-related problems with sleep and quality of life, patients were generally satisfied with their pain control status. Interestingly, physicians were more likely to be dissatisfied with patients' pain control. Enhanced patient-physician communication, physicians' proactivity in managing opioid-induced adverse effects, and accessibility of analgesics have been identified to be crucial for successful cancer pain management. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02664987)

Analgesic Prescription Patterns and Pain Outcomes in Southeast Asia: Findings From the Analgesic Treatment of Cancer Pain in Southeast Asia Study

Purpose :To identify patterns of analgesic prescription and to explore patient-reported pain intensity, sleep disturbance, and quality of life among cancer patients with pain in Southeast Asia (SEA). Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 465 adult outpatients prescribed analgesics for cancer pain for 1 month or longer at 22 sites in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Data on analgesic prescription and cancer characteristics were extracted from medical records. Pain intensity, sleep disturbance, and quality of life measures were recorded via questionnaires. Results: Most patients (84.4%) had stage III or IV cancer. A total of 419 patients (90.7%) were prescribed opioids; of these, 42.2% received only weak opioids, whereas 57.8% received at least one strong opioid. The mean worst pain intensity during the past 24 hours was 4.76 (standard deviation [SD], 2.47) on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain); the mean current pain intensity was 4.10 (SD, 2.61). More than half of patients (54.8%) reported sleep disturbance caused by pain in the past 7 days. The majority of patients reported problems with pain/discomfort (82.3%), usual activities (65.8%), mobility (58.2%), and anxiety/depression (56.3%). The median daily dose prescribed in oral morphine equivalents was 30 mg for both morphine and tramadol. Conclusion: Despite unrelieved pain, sleep disturbance, and issues with quality of life, a notable proportion of patients were prescribed only weak opioids, and opioid doses prescribed were generally low. Efforts focused on encouragement of prescriptions with analgesic strength and/or doses proportional to the pain management needs of patients are vital to improve the status of cancer pain management in the region