Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40961249›Full record

Trial reportJMIR aging2025

Using Smart Displays to Implement an eHealth System for Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Gina Landucci, David H Gustafson, Marie-Louise Mares, Klaren Pe-Romashko, John J Curtin, Yaxin Hu, Adam Maus, Kasey Thompson, Sydney Saunders, Kaitlyn Brown and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04798196 (Using Smart Devices to Implement an Evidence-based eHealth System for Older Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04798196 nacompletednot on this map

Using Smart Devices to Implement an Evidence-based eHealth System for Older Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonRan2021 to 2023Enrolled268ConditionsChronic PainArmsElderTree on laptop (ET- LT), ElderTree on smart system (ET- SS), Treatment as usual (TAU)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

12 authors.

Gina LanducciCenter for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7323-2521
David H GustafsonCenter for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0660-1902
Marie-Louise MaresDepartment of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0811-3056
Klaren Pe-RomashkoCenter for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5208-0458
John J CurtinDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3286-938X
Yaxin HuDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4462-0140
Adam MausCenter for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5896-5230
Kasey ThompsonCenter for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6896-7920
Sydney SaundersCenter for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0684-7010
Kaitlyn BrownCenter for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8688-9275
Judith WoodburnCenter for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1487-8586
Bilge MutluDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9456-1495

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
AHRQ HHS R18 HS026853NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmart displays and speakers offer voice interaction, which may be more accessible and appealing to older adults with chronic pain and other multimorbid conditions. Previous trials found stronger socioemotional benefits of ElderTree (vs control) among those with high primary care use and multiple chronic conditions.

objectiveThis study aims to test whether older adults with chronic pain and multiple other chronic conditions use and benefit more from ElderTree, an eHealth intervention targeting pain and quality of life, when delivered on a smart display.

methodsWe recruited 269 participants from the University of Wisconsin-Madison health system and community organizations and randomly assigned 1:1:1 to (1) smart display with internet and ElderTree, plus usual care; (2) touchscreen laptop with internet and ElderTree, plus usual care; or (3) usual care alone. Participants were aged ≥60 years, had a chronic pain diagnosis or reported chronic pain, and at least 3 common chronic conditions. Primary outcomes were pain interference and psychosocial quality of life. Data sources were baseline, 4-month, and 8-month surveys and continuous ElderTree usage data.

resultsNo significant differences were found between the laptop versus smart display groups for pain interference (b=-0.11, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.85; P=.82) or psychosocial quality (b=-0.21, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.55; P=.56), nor between the combined laptop+smart display group versus control group for either outcome (pain interference: b=-0.41, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.41; P=.33; psychosocial quality of life: b=0.04, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.69; P=.90). Mediation was not tested because effects on primary outcomes were nonsignificant. Gender did not moderate the effect of laptop versus smart display groups in pain interference (b=-1.56, 95% CI -3.56 to 0.44; P=.13). Gender did moderate the effect of the combined laptop+smart display group versus control group (b=1.91, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.71; P=.04). Women showed a significant decrease in pain interference (b=-0.69, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.10; P=.02), whereas women in the control group showed no significant change (b=0.25, 95% CI -0.53 to 1.04; P=.53). Men in the combined group showed a nonsignificant decrease (b=-0.67, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.14; P=.10), whereas men in the control group showed a significant decrease (b=-1.61, 95% CI -2.88 to -0.35; P=.01). Participants assigned to the laptop versus smart display used ElderTree more frequently and had more favorable perceptions. Analyses of secondary and exploratory outcomes showed no significant differences between groups.

conclusionsWe found no significant differences between the combined ElderTree group and the control group for changes over time in any primary, secondary, or exploratory outcomes. Moderation analyses indicated that only gender moderated study arm effects, and only for the laptop+smart display versus control group on changes over time in the two primary outcomes.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04798196; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04798196. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/37522.

Indexed as

Chronic PainMultiple Chronic ConditionsTelemedicineAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of Lifeagedchronic paineHealthgeriatricshealth expendituresmultiple chronic conditionsprimary carequality of lifesmart displayssmart speakers

Identifiers

PMID40961249
PMCPMC12673301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.