Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36802278›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023

Digital health tools for pain monitoring in pediatric oncology: a scoping review and qualitative assessment of barriers and facilitators of implementation.

J D H P Simon, I S Hooijman, M Van Gorp, S A Schepers, E M C Michiels, W J E Tissing, M A Grootenhuis

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Designing and Validating Cuidador Web App for Self-Reported Pain among Children and Adolescents in Oncology Care.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Usability Evaluation of the RevisedChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J D H P SimonPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands. j.d.h.simon-3@prinsesmaximacentrum.nl.
I S HooijmanPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M Van GorpPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S A SchepersPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E M C MichielsPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
W J E TissingPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M A GrootenhuisPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Princess Máxima Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to systematically identify and characterize existing digital health tools for pain monitoring in children with cancer, and to assess common barriers and facilitators of implementation.

methodsA comprehensive literature search (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO) was carried out to identify published research on mobile apps and wearable devices focusing on acute and/or chronic pain in children (0-18 years) with cancer (all diagnoses) during active treatment. Tools had to at least include a monitoring feature for one or more pain characteristic(s) (e.g., presence, severity, perceived cause interference with daily life). Project leaders of identified tools were invited for an interview on barriers and facilitators.

resultsOf 121 potential publications, 33 met inclusion criteria, describing 14 tools. Two methods of delivery were used: apps (n=13), and a wearable wristband (n=1). Most publications focused on feasibility and acceptability. Results of interviews with project leaders (100% response rate), reveal that most barriers to implementation were identified in the organizational context (47% of barriers), with financial resources and insufficient time available mentioned most often. Most factors that facilitated implementation related to end users (56% of facilitators), with end-user cooperation and end-user satisfaction mentioned most often.

conclusionsExisting digital tools for pain in children with cancer were mostly apps directed at pain severity monitoring and little is still known about their effectiveness. Paying attention to common barriers and facilitators, especially taking into account realistic funding expectations and involving end users during early stages of new projects, might prevent evidence based interventions from ending up unused.

Indexed as

Chronic PainMobile ApplicationsNeoplasmsChildHumansPersonal SatisfactionQualitative ResearchDigital healthImplementationmHealthPainPediatric oncology

Identifiers

PMID36802278
PMCPMC9944681
OpenAlexW4321437670

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.