Ellen Anna Andreassen Jaatun1, Marianne Jensen Hjermstad2, Odd Erik Gundersen3, Line Oldervoll4, Stein Kaasa5, Dagny Faksvåg Haugen6. 1. European Palliative Care Research Centre, Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 2. European Palliative Care Research Centre, Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Regional Centre for Excellence in Palliative Care, South Eastern Norway, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: marianne.j.hjermstad@ntnu.no. 3. Department of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Verdande Technology AS, Trondheim, Norway. 4. European Palliative Care Research Centre, Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Research Centre for Health Promotion and Resources, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 5. European Palliative Care Research Centre, Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Department of Oncology, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 6. European Palliative Care Research Centre, Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Regional Centre of Excellence for Palliative Care, Western Norway, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Pain localization is an important part of pain assessment. Development of pain tools for self-report should include expert and patient input, and patient testing in large samples. OBJECTIVES: To develop a computerized pain body map (CPBM) for use in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Three studies were conducted: 1) an international expert survey and a pilot study guiding the contents and layout of the CPBM, 2) clinical testing in an international symptom assessment study in eight countries and 17 centers (N = 533), and 3) comparing patient pain markings on computer and paper body maps (N = 92). RESULTS: Study 1: 22 pain experts and 28 patients participated. A CPBM with anterior and posterior whole body views was developed for marking pain locations, supplemented by pain intensity ratings for each location. Study 2: 533 patients (286 male, 247 female, mean age 62 years) participated; 80% received pain medication and 81% had metastatic disease. Eighty-five percent completed CPBM as intended. Mean ± SD number of marked pain locations was 1.8 ± 1.2. Aberrant markings (15%) were mostly related to software problems. No differences were found regarding age, gender, cognitive/physical performance, or previous computer experience. Study 3: 70% of the patients had identical markings on the computer and paper maps. Only four patients had completely different markings on the two maps. CONCLUSION: This first version of CPBM was well accepted by patients with advanced cancer. However, several areas for improvement were revealed, providing a basis for the development of the next version, which is subject to further international testing.
CONTEXT: Pain localization is an important part of pain assessment. Development of pain tools for self-report should include expert and patient input, and patient testing in large samples. OBJECTIVES: To develop a computerized pain body map (CPBM) for use in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Three studies were conducted: 1) an international expert survey and a pilot study guiding the contents and layout of the CPBM, 2) clinical testing in an international symptom assessment study in eight countries and 17 centers (N = 533), and 3) comparing patientpain markings on computer and paper body maps (N = 92). RESULTS: Study 1: 22 pain experts and 28 patients participated. A CPBM with anterior and posterior whole body views was developed for marking pain locations, supplemented by pain intensity ratings for each location. Study 2: 533 patients (286 male, 247 female, mean age 62 years) participated; 80% received pain medication and 81% had metastatic disease. Eighty-five percent completed CPBM as intended. Mean ± SD number of marked pain locations was 1.8 ± 1.2. Aberrant markings (15%) were mostly related to software problems. No differences were found regarding age, gender, cognitive/physical performance, or previous computer experience. Study 3: 70% of the patients had identical markings on the computer and paper maps. Only four patients had completely different markings on the two maps. CONCLUSION: This first version of CPBM was well accepted by patients with advanced cancer. However, several areas for improvement were revealed, providing a basis for the development of the next version, which is subject to further international testing.
Authors: Alexander T Adams; Phil Adams; Elizabeth L Murnane; Mike Elfenbein; Shruti Sannon; Geri Gay; Tanzeem Choudhury; Pamara F Chang Journal: ACM Trans Appl Percept Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 1.550
Authors: Natasha Ansari; Christina M Wilson; Mallorie B Heneghan; Kathie Supiano; Kathi Mooney Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Matthew F Jacques; Rachel C Stockley; Emma I Bostock; Jonathon Smith; Christian G DeGoede; Christopher I Morse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240