Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29092810›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017

Recruitment and Ongoing Engagement in a UK Smartphone Study Examining the Association Between Weather and Pain: Cohort Study.

Katie L Druce, John McBeth, Sabine N van der Veer, David A Selby, Bertie Vidgen, Konstantinos Georgatzis, Bruce Hellman, Rashmi Lakshminarayana, Afiqul Chowdhury, David M Schultz and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Feasibility and user acceptability of BreezingSmart health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Katie L DruceArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7696-2308
John McBethArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7047-2183
Sabine N van der VeerArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0929-436X
David A SelbyDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8026-5663
Bertie VidgenOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7911-6855
Konstantinos GeorgatzisSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8142-8495
Bruce HellmanuMotif, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8015-8187
Rashmi LakshminarayanauMotif, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9183-9079
Afiqul ChowdhuryArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7396-4298
David M SchultzCentre for Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1558-6975
Caroline SandersMedical Sociology, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0539-928X
Jamie C SergeantArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9000-4413
William G DixonArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5881-4857

Funding

Medical Research Council G0902272Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MC_PC_13070Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1Versus Arthritis 21225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe huge increase in smartphone use heralds an enormous opportunity for epidemiology research, but there is limited evidence regarding long-term engagement and attrition in mobile health (mHealth) studies.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to examine how representative the Cloudy with a Chance of Pain study population is of wider chronic-pain populations and to explore patterns of engagement among participants during the first 6 months of the study.

methodsParticipants in the United Kingdom who had chronic pain (≥3 months) and enrolled between January 20, 2016 and January 29, 2016 were eligible if they were aged ≥17 years and used the study app to report any of 10 pain-related symptoms during the study period. Participant characteristics were compared with data from the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2011. Distinct clusters of engagement over time were determined using first-order hidden Markov models, and participant characteristics were compared between the clusters.

resultsCompared with the data from the HSE, our sample comprised a higher proportion of women (80.51%, 5129/6370 vs 55.61%, 4782/8599) and fewer persons at the extremes of age (16-34 and 75+). Four clusters of engagement were identified: high (13.60%, 865/6370), moderate (21.76%, 1384/6370), low (39.35%, 2503/6370), and tourists (25.44%, 1618/6370), between which median days of data entry ranged from 1 (interquartile range; IQR: 1-1; tourist) to 149 (124-163; high). Those in the high-engagement cluster were typically older, whereas those in the tourist cluster were mostly male. Few other differences distinguished the clusters.

conclusionsCloudy with a Chance of Pain demonstrates a rapid and successful recruitment of a large, representative, and engaged sample of people with chronic pain and provides strong evidence to suggest that smartphones could provide a viable alternative to traditional data collection methods.

Indexed as

chronic painepidemiologymethodsmHealth

Identifiers

PMID29092810
PMCPMC5688244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.