Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul 17;21(7):e11086.
doi: 10.2196/11086.

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Modalities Used to Deliver Electronic Health Interventions for Chronic Pain: Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis

Brian W Slattery  1   2 , Stephanie Haugh  2 , Laura O'Connor  2 , Kady Francis  2 , Christopher P Dwyer  2 , Siobhán O'Higgins  2 , Jonathan Egan  2 , Brian E McGuire  2
Affiliations

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Modalities Used to Deliver Electronic Health Interventions for Chronic Pain: Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis

Brian W Slattery et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Electronic health (eHealth) is the use of information and communication technology in the context of health care and health research. Recently, there has been a rise in the number of eHealth modalities and the frequency with which they are used to deliver technology-assisted self-management interventions for people living with chronic pain. However, there has been little or no research directly comparing these eHealth modalities.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review with a network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the effectiveness of eHealth modalities in the context of chronic pain.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (N>20 per arm) that investigated interventions for adults with chronic pain, delivered via an eHealth modality, were included. Included studies were categorized into their primary node of delivery. Data were extracted on the primary outcome, pain interference, and secondary outcomes, pain severity, psychological distress, and health-related quality of life. Pairwise meta-analyses were undertaken where possible, and an NMA was conducted to generate indirect comparisons and rankings of modalities for reducing pain interference.

Results: The search returned 18,470 studies with 18,349 being excluded (duplicates=2310; title and abstract=16,039). Of the remaining papers, 30 studies with 5394 randomized participants were included in the review. Rankings tentatively indicated that modern eHealth modalities are the most effective, with a 43% chance that mobile apps delivered the most effective interventions, followed by a 34% chance that interventions delivered via virtual reality were the most effective.

Conclusions: This systematic review with an NMA generated comparisons between eHealth modalities previously not compared to determine which delivered the most effective interventions for the reduction of pain interference in chronic pain patients. There are limitations with this review, in particular, the underrepresented nature of some eHealth modalities included in the analysis. However, in the event that the review is regularly updated, a clear ranking of eHealth modalities for the reduction of pain interference will emerge.

Keywords: Virtual Reality; chronic pain; digital health; eHealth; mHealth; network meta-analysis; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of studies assessed for eligibility.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Network map of electronic health modalities for chronic pain.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Slattery BW, Haugh S, Francis K, O'Connor L, Barrett K, Dwyer CP, O'Higgins S, Egan J, McGuire BE. Protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analysis of the modalities used to deliver eHealth interventions for chronic pain. Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 03;6(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0414-x. https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s136... 10.1186/s13643-017-0414-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Showell C, Nøhr C. How should we define eHealth, and does the definition matter? Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:881–4. - PubMed
    1. Catwell L, Sheikh A. Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation. PLoS Med. 2009 Aug;6(8):e1000126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosser BA, Vowles KE, Keogh E, Eccleston C, Mountain GA. Technologically-assisted behaviour change: a systematic review of studies of novel technologies for the management of chronic illness. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(7):327–38. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2009.090116.15/7/327 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krein SL, Kadri R, Hughes M, Kerr EA, Piette JD, Holleman R, Kim HM, Richardson CR. Pedometer-based internet-mediated intervention for adults with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 19;15(8):e181. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2605. http://www.jmir.org/2013/8/e181/ v15i8e181 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types