ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019
Multidisciplinary Software Design for the Routine Monitoring and Assessment of Pain in Palliative Care Services: The Development of PainCheck.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining Challenges to Co-Design Digital Health Interventions With End Users: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Digital health for cancer symptom management in palliative medicine: systematic review.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2024Pooled it
- MyPainPal, a Novel mHealth App to Improve Pain in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Single-Arm Pilot Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Trial
- Patients' and healthcare providers' perceptions in outpatient palliative cancer care services at a tertiary care hospital in Sri Lanka: prospects for adoption of a digital health intervention.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Perceptions and Needs of Stakeholders Regarding MyPal Project's Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome App: Cross-Sectional Qualitative Focus Group Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Pain in non-communicative older adults beyond dementia: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- How technology can improve communication and health outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: an integrative review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Review
- Leveraging mobile health technology and research methodology to optimize patient education and self-management support for advanced cancer pain.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Are Regulations Safe? Reflections From Developing a Digital Cancer Decision-Support Tool.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021Article
- Automated facial recognition system using deep learning for pain assessment in adults with cerebral palsy.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of health information technology (HIT) to support patient and health professional communication is emerging as a core component of modern cancer care. Approaches to HIT development for cancer care are often underreported, despite their implementation in complex, multidisciplinary environments, typically supporting patients with multifaceted needs. We describe the development and evaluation of an e-health tool for pain management in patients with advanced cancer, arising from collaboration between health researchers and a commercial software development company.
methodsWe adopted a research-led development process, involving patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals, focusing on use within real clinical settings. A software development approach (disciplined agile delivery) was combined with health science research methods (ie, diary studies, face-to-face interviews, questionnaires, prototyping, think aloud, process reviews, and pilots). Three software iterations were managed through three disciplined agile delivery phases to develop PainCheck and prepare it for use in a clinical trial.
resultsFindings from development phases (inception, elaboration, and construction) informed the design and implementation of PainCheck. During the transition phase, where PainCheck was evaluated in a randomized clinical trial, there was variation in the extent of engagement by patients and health professionals. Prior personal experience and confidence with HIT led to a gatekeeping effect among health professionals, who were reluctant to introduce PainCheck to patients. Patients who did use PainCheck seemed to benefit, and no usability issues were reported.
conclusionHealth science research methods seemed to help in the development of PainCheck, although a more rigorous application of implementation science methodologies might help to elucidate further the barriers and facilitators to adoption and inform an evidence-based plan for future implementation.
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.