Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33646365›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Clinical efficacy and implementation issues of an electronic pain reporting device among outpatients with cancer.

M Kay M Judge, Roberta Luedke, Brenda W Dyal, Miriam O Ezenwa, Diana J Wilkie

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M Kay M JudgeNursing Consult LLC, 2125 First Ave #1802, Seattle, WA, 98121, USA. nursingconsultllc@gmail.com.
Roberta LuedkeNursing Consult LLC, 2125 First Ave #1802, Seattle, WA, 98121, USA.
Brenda W DyalDepartment of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, Room 2203, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA.
Miriam O EzenwaDepartment of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, Room 2203, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA.
Diana J WilkieeNURSING LLC, 1138 E 5645th S, Salt Lake City, UT, 84121-1011, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3954-8933
University of Florida · USEnsco (United States) · US

Funding

PAIN ReportIt Adoption:Issues and OutcomesR44NR004742 · NINR · NURSING CONSULT, LLC · PI JUDGE, M K · 2001 to 2002
$741k
National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health R44 NR04742NINR NIH HHS R44 NR004742
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCollecting patients' pain features for congruent pain relief treatment is time-consuming. We sought to identify implementation issues and evaluate the efficacy of an electronic patient self-reporting pain device in community-based cancer clinics.

methodsIn a 2-phase descriptive pilot and randomized controlled trial (RCT) with pretest/posttest design, 178 cancer patients participated (n = 33 pilot phase; n = 145 in the RCT phase). Patients completed PAINReportIt®, an electronic version of the valid and reliable McGill Pain Questionnaire that comprehensively measures the multiple dimensions of pain. All pilot phase and RCT patients were asked to complete PAINReportIt® twice and received usual care. For RCT patients assigned to the experimental group, a copy of the PAINReportIt® Summary was placed in their clinic medical record before they visited their clinicians. Posttest measures were completed 3-7 days later.

resultsWe identified three implementation barriers: system resistance to deposit of research data into the medical record, staff resistance to change, and patients' physical manipulation of the tablet. The time required to complete the tool did not differ significantly between groups but reduced significantly pre- to posttest in both RCT groups. Current pain intensity and pain quality but not worst pain scores decreased significantly pre- to posttest in the experimental group. None of the pain variables differed significantly between groups.

conclusionImplementation of PAINReportIt® was feasible in community oncology clinic settings. Barriers identified were expected and were surmountable. The studied tool showed satisfactory time sparing for comprehensive pain assessment with data automatically recorded and easily accessed by the clinician in the form of a summary report. Findings support the need for additional research to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of tablet-based pain assessment on patient outcomes as well as clinical care processes such as pain documentation and analgesic prescriptions.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsOutpatientsPainElectronicsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeCancer painCommunity health centerPain measurement

Identifiers

PMID33646365
PMCPMC8295209
OpenAlexW3135625987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.