ArticlePain reports2018
Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design.
Article in Pain reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- New Technologies to Improve Pain, Anxiety and Depression in Children and Adolescents with Cancer: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Engaging individuals in digital health research panels: A qualitative study including participants in vulnerable positions.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Development of iGET Living, a Digital Graded Exposure Intervention for Youth With Chronic Pain: Multiphase User-Centered Design and Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Digital health solutions for caregivers of children experiencing acute pain: a scoping review.Pain reports · 2025Review
- Human-Centered Design of a Personalized Digital Health Intervention to Improve Oral Chemotherapy Adherence in Adolescents and Young Adults With Hematologic Cancers.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2025Article
- Identification of technology-based models and efficacy of digital-based pain facial expression assessment tools among children: a systematic review.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- User-Driven Development of a Digital Behavioral Intervention for Chronic Pain: Multimethod Multiphase Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators of pain management in children: a scoping review.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Developing and implementing a nurse-delivered and a web-based dyadic psychoeducational program for people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers: sharing experiences from a three-arm international randomized controlled trial (DIAdIC).Palliative care and social practice · 2025Article
- Expanding a Behavioral View on Digital Health Access: Drivers and Strategies to Promote Equity.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Patient and public involvement in the development of the digital tool MyBoT to support communication between young people with a chronic condition and care providers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Co-designing clinical trials alongside youth with chronic pain.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2023Article
- A self-management psychoeducational eHealth program to support and empower people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers: Development using the scrum methodology.Internet interventions · 2023Article
- Mapping the Design Space of Technology-Based Solutions for Better Chronic Pain Care: Introducing the Pain Tech Landscape.Psychosomatic medicine · 2023Review
- "Making Data the Drug": A Pragmatic Pilot Feasibility Randomized Crossover Trial of Data Visualization as an Intervention for Pediatric Chronic Pain.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Digital health tools for pain monitoring in pediatric oncology: a scoping review and qualitative assessment of barriers and facilitators of implementation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Digital health tools for pain monitoring in pediatric oncology: a scoping review and qualitative assessment of barriers and facilitators of implementation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Quality of Mobile Apps for Child Development Support: Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNumerous eHealth tools for pain assessment and management have been developed and evaluated with promising results regarding psychometric properties, efficacy, and effectiveness. Although considerable resources are spent on developing and evaluating these tools with the aim of increasing access to care, current evidence suggests they are not made available to end users, reducing their impact and creating potential research waste.
methodsThis study consisted of 2 components: (1) a systematic review of eHealth tools for pediatric pain assessment and/or management published in the past 10 years, and (2) an online survey, completed by the authors of identified tools, of tool availability, perceived barriers or facilitators to availability, grant funding used, and a validated measure of user-centeredness of the design process (UCD-11).
resultsNinety articles (0.86% of citations screened) describing 53 tools met inclusion criteria. Twenty-six survey responses were completed (49.06%), 13 of which (50.00%) described available tools. Commonly endorsed facilitators of tool availability included researchers' beliefs in tool benefits to the target population and research community; barriers included lack of infrastructure and time. The average cost of each unavailable tool was $314,425.31 USD ($3,144,253.06 USD total, n = 10). Authors of available tools were more likely to have followed user-centered design principles and reported higher total funding.
conclusionSystemic changes to academic and funding structures could better support eHealth tool availability and may reduce potential for research waste. User-centered design and implementation science methods could improve the availability of eHealth tools and should be further explored in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.