Do pain management apps use evidence-based psychological components? A systematic review of app content and quality. Issue 1 (31st December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: MacPherson, Megan; Bakker, A. Myfanwy; Anderson, Koby; Holtzman, Susan
• Is Part Of: Canadian journal of pain =. Volume 6:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 33
• Page End: 44
• Publication Date: 2022-12-31
• Subjects: smartphone -- telemedicine -- mobile applications -- chronic pain -- pain management -- psychosocial intervention; Pain -- Periodicals; Pain -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Pain; Pain Management; Periodicals; 616.0472
• DOI: 10.1080/24740527.2022.2030212
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2474-0527

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: With hundreds of pain management apps on the Canadian marketplace, it can be challenging for patients and clinicians to select effective and evidence-based mobile health (mHealth) apps that address pain from a biopsychosocial perspective. Aims: The aim of this study is to identify pain management apps within the Canadian app marketplaces to aid clinicians in recommending apps. Methods: The iOS and Android marketplaces were systematically searched to identify pain management apps that included at least one core component of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or mindfulness- and acceptance-based therapies. Selected apps were assessed using a researcher developed psychological components checklist, and the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). These two measures provided a robust assessment of the apps' technical abilities and psychological principles being implemented. Results: Five hundred eight pain management apps were identified, yet only 12 included a psychological component and were available for evaluation. On average, apps contained 8.10 out of 18 psychological components (SD = 2.77) with a MARS quality rating of 4.02 out of 5 (SD = 0.32). The most common psychological components were grounded in CBT, including psychoeducation, sleep hygiene, behavioral activation, coping skills training, and social support. Among the least commonly included components were goal setting, values, and culture/diversity. Two-thirds of the apps involved health care practitioners in their development, but independent scientific review of apps was scarce. Conclusion: The highest scoring apps (Curable, Pathways, Vivify) are highlighted for health care practitioners who may wish to recommend mHealth technologies to their patients for pain management. Future directions for research and app development are discussed.