ArticleDigital health
Implementation-effectiveness of the power over pain portal for patients awaiting a tertiary care consultation for chronic pain: A pilot feasibility study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Power Over Pain (POP) Portal is a digital platform that provides people living with pain (PLWP) flexible access to chronic pain self-management resources. Aims: To (1) determine the feasibility of an adequately-powered multisite trial of the POP Portal in tertiary settings; (2) understand the acceptability and usability of the POP Portal; and (3) explore clinical effectiveness among PLWP awaiting a first visit to a tertiary care pain clinic. Methods: Mixed-methods pilot-feasibility study to inform a future definitive trial. Feasibility was assessed using recruitment and retention rates. Acceptability, usability, and patient outcomes were measured using validated surveys completed at baseline and 3-month follow-up, and semistructured interviews conducted after 3-month follow-up. Results: Forty-one participants completed follow-up surveys and nine completed interviews. We reached a recruitment and retention rate of 83.75% and 61.19%, respectively. There was a reduction in pain interference ( Conclusions: The POP Portal was deemed acceptable with good usability; however, modification may be made for improvement. A definitive trial can proceed with enhancements to the portal, modification of the protocol, and close monitoring.
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.