OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine barriers to the use of electronic diaries within the clinic setting and determine outcome differences between patients who used electronic diaries to monitor their progress with summary data feedback and patients who monitored their progress with paper diaries without summary data feedback. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four (n=134) chronic pain patients were asked to monitor their pain, mood, activity interference, medication use, and pain location on either a paper or electronic diary immediately before each monthly clinic visit for 10 months. Patients and their treating physicians in the electronic diary group (n=67) were able to observe changes in their ratings whereas patients using the paper diaries (n=67) had no feedback about their data entry. RESULTS: Most participants believed that completing pain diaries was beneficial; yet, only 23% of patients in the experimental condition felt that the data from the electronic diaries improved their care and less than 15% believed that their doctor made a change in their treatment based on the summary diary information. CONCLUSION: In general, treating physicians were positive about the use of electronic diaries, although they admitted that they did not regularly incorporate the summary data in their treatment decision making because either they forgot or they were too busy. Future studies in understanding barriers to physicians' and patients' use of diary data to impact treatment outcome are needed to improve care for persons with chronic pain. 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine barriers to the use of electronic diaries within the clinic setting and determine outcome differences between patients who used electronic diaries to monitor their progress with summary data feedback and patients who monitored their progress with paper diaries without summary data feedback. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four (n=134) chronic painpatients were asked to monitor their pain, mood, activity interference, medication use, and pain location on either a paper or electronic diary immediately before each monthly clinic visit for 10 months. Patients and their treating physicians in the electronic diary group (n=67) were able to observe changes in their ratings whereas patients using the paper diaries (n=67) had no feedback about their data entry. RESULTS: Most participants believed that completing pain diaries was beneficial; yet, only 23% of patients in the experimental condition felt that the data from the electronic diaries improved their care and less than 15% believed that their doctor made a change in their treatment based on the summary diary information. CONCLUSION: In general, treating physicians were positive about the use of electronic diaries, although they admitted that they did not regularly incorporate the summary data in their treatment decision making because either they forgot or they were too busy. Future studies in understanding barriers to physicians' and patients' use of diary data to impact treatment outcome are needed to improve care for persons with chronic pain. 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: T K Kvien; P Mowinckel; T Heiberg; K L Dammann; Ø Dale; G J Aanerud; T N Alme; T Uhlig Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Robert N Jamison; Richard H Gracely; Stephen A Raymond; Jonathan G Levine; Barbara Marino; Timothy J Herrmann; Margaret Daly; David Fram; Nathaniel P Katz Journal: Pain Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: San Keller; Carla M Bann; Sheri L Dodd; Jeff Schein; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Arthur A Stone; Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Saul Shiffman; Leighann Litcher-Kelly; Pamela Calvanese Journal: Pain Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Justin A Kenardy; Michael G T Dow; Derek W Johnston; Michelle G Newman; Aileen Thomson; C Barr Taylor Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2003-12
Authors: Stephen F Butler; Kevin L Zacharoff; Sadaf Charity; Ryan A Black; Emma Chung; Antje Barreveld; Molly S Clark; Robert N Jamison Journal: Pain Med Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Sydney M Dy; Jayashree Roy; Geoffrey E Ott; Michael McHale; Christine Kennedy; Jean S Kutner; Allen Tien Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Marc O Martel; Patrick H Finan; Andrew J Dolman; Subu Subramanian; Robert R Edwards; Ajay D Wasan; Robert N Jamison Journal: Pain Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Nuno Pombo; Nuno Garcia; Kouamana Bousson; Susanna Spinsante; Ivan Chorbev Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lindsay A Jibb; James S Khan; Puneet Seth; Chitra Lalloo; Lauren Mulrooney; Kathryn Nicholson; Dominik A Nowak; Harneel Kaur; Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow; Joel Foster; Jennifer N Stinson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Astrid Langergaard; Sidsel Lund Laursen; Stig Helweg-Jørgensen; Jesper Søndergaard; Sabrina Storgaard Sørensen; Kim Mathiasen; Mia Beck Lichtenstein; Lars Holger Ehlers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 5.428