Initial testing of a mobile app behavioral pain coping intervention for patients with cancer: Results of a pilot randomized controlled trial.

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Psychosocial Oncology Pub Date : 2026-04-08 DOI:10.1080/07347332.2026.2652946

Sarah A Kelleher, Hannah M Fisher, Natalie Chou, Allison K Diachina, Joseph G Winger, Hope E Uronis, Francis J Keefe, Tamara J Somers

{"title":"Initial testing of a mobile app behavioral pain coping intervention for patients with cancer: Results of a pilot randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Sarah A Kelleher, Hannah M Fisher, Natalie Chou, Allison K Diachina, Joseph G Winger, Hope E Uronis, Francis J Keefe, Tamara J Somers","doi":"10.1080/07347332.2026.2652946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Behavioral management is recommended for cancer pain, yet not well integrated into clinical practice. PainPac is an asynchronous mobile application that delivers behavioral pain coping strategies. We evaluated PainPac's feasibility, acceptability, and impact on pain compared to a videoconference-delivered protocol (PCST-Video).Methods: Participants (N = 62) were adults with a stage I-IV diagnosis of colorectal cancer within the past two years and pain ≥4 on 0-10 scale from an academic cancer center. Participants were randomized 1:1 to PainPac or PCST-Video. Feasibility (accrual [N = 60/15 months]; attrition at the post-treatment assessment [primary endpoint; <25%]; adherence to all assessments and intervention modules/sessions [>75%]), burden (number of modules/sessions completed; time from baseline to completion of first module/session; time to complete all sessions/modules), engagement (skills practice and PainPac log in >3 times/week), and acceptability (≥80% of participants reporting ≥75% satisfaction on Client Satisfaction Questionnaire) were assessed. Changes in pain and pain-related outcomes were explored at baseline (A1), post-treatment (A2), and 1-month post-treatment (A3).Results: Feasibility exceeded prespecified benchmarks (N = 62/10 months; 92% A2 retention). Ninety percent of PainPac participants completed all modules (Msessions=3.77, SD=.82); 80% of PCST-Video participants completed all sessions (Msessions=3.37, SD = 1.33). Participants moved from A1 to completion of first module/session in 1 day for PainPac and 12 days for PCST-Video. Number of days to complete all modules/sessions was M = 23.57 (SD = 5.31) for PainPac and M = 27.63 (SD = 6.70) for PCST-Video. PainPac engagement exceeded prespecified benchmarks (M = 9.22 app logins per week). Satisfaction was high with PainPac (89.3% ≥24; M = 28.11, SD = 3.74) and PCST-Video (92.6% ≥24; M = 28.93, SD = 3.57). Pain outcomes changed in the expected direction for both conditions, improving from A1 to A3.Discussion: PainPac is a promising approach for improving cancer pain management. Technology-based behavioral interventions can decrease barriers and improve intervention reach, scalability, and sustainability in clinical practice. Larger, well-powered randomized trials are needed to test PainPac's efficacy.Clinical trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05686122.","PeriodicalId":47451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychosocial Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13188930/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychosocial Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2026.2652946","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Behavioral management is recommended for cancer pain, yet not well integrated into clinical practice. PainPac is an asynchronous mobile application that delivers behavioral pain coping strategies. We evaluated PainPac's feasibility, acceptability, and impact on pain compared to a videoconference-delivered protocol (PCST-Video).

Methods: Participants (N = 62) were adults with a stage I-IV diagnosis of colorectal cancer within the past two years and pain ≥4 on 0-10 scale from an academic cancer center. Participants were randomized 1:1 to PainPac or PCST-Video. Feasibility (accrual [N = 60/15 months]; attrition at the post-treatment assessment [primary endpoint; <25%]; adherence to all assessments and intervention modules/sessions [>75%]), burden (number of modules/sessions completed; time from baseline to completion of first module/session; time to complete all sessions/modules), engagement (skills practice and PainPac log in >3 times/week), and acceptability (≥80% of participants reporting ≥75% satisfaction on Client Satisfaction Questionnaire) were assessed. Changes in pain and pain-related outcomes were explored at baseline (A1), post-treatment (A2), and 1-month post-treatment (A3).

Results: Feasibility exceeded prespecified benchmarks (N = 62/10 months; 92% A2 retention). Ninety percent of PainPac participants completed all modules (M_sessions=3.77, SD=.82); 80% of PCST-Video participants completed all sessions (M_sessions=3.37, SD = 1.33). Participants moved from A1 to completion of first module/session in 1 day for PainPac and 12 days for PCST-Video. Number of days to complete all modules/sessions was M = 23.57 (SD = 5.31) for PainPac and M = 27.63 (SD = 6.70) for PCST-Video. PainPac engagement exceeded prespecified benchmarks (M = 9.22 app logins per week). Satisfaction was high with PainPac (89.3% ≥24; M = 28.11, SD = 3.74) and PCST-Video (92.6% ≥24; M = 28.93, SD = 3.57). Pain outcomes changed in the expected direction for both conditions, improving from A1 to A3.

Discussion: PainPac is a promising approach for improving cancer pain management. Technology-based behavioral interventions can decrease barriers and improve intervention reach, scalability, and sustainability in clinical practice. Larger, well-powered randomized trials are needed to test PainPac's efficacy.

Clinical trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05686122.

查看原文本刊更多论文

癌症患者行为疼痛应对干预的移动应用程序的初步测试：一项试点随机对照试验的结果。

目的：行为管理被推荐用于治疗癌性疼痛，但尚未很好地融入临床实践。PainPac是一个异步移动应用程序，提供行为疼痛应对策略。我们评估了PainPac的可行性、可接受性以及与视频会议传输方案（PCST-Video）相比对疼痛的影响。方法：参与者（N = 62）是来自学术癌症中心的成人，在过去两年内诊断为结直肠癌I-IV期，疼痛≥4（0-10）。参与者按1:1随机分配到PainPac或PCST-Video组。评估了可行性（应计[N = 60/15个月]；治疗后评估的损耗率[主要终点；75%]）、负担（完成的模块/会话数；从基线到完成第一个模块/会话的时间；完成所有会话/模块的时间）、参与度（技能练习和PainPac登录>3次/周）和可接受性（≥80%的参与者在客户满意度问卷中报告≥75%的满意度）。在基线（A1）、治疗后（A2）和治疗后1个月（A3）时探讨疼痛和疼痛相关结局的变化。结果：可行性超出了预先设定的基准（N = 62/10个月；A2保留率92%）。90%的PainPac参与者完成了所有模块（Msessions=3.77， SD= 0.82）；80%的PCST-Video参与者完成了所有的会话（Msessions=3.37, SD = 1.33）。参与者从A1到完成第一个模块/会话，PainPac为1天，PCST-Video为12天。完成所有模块/会话的天数PainPac为M = 23.57 (SD = 5.31)， PCST-Video为M = 27.63 （SD = 6.70）。PainPac的用户粘性超过了预先设定的基准（M =每周9.22个应用登录）。PainPac满意度较高（89.3%≥24,M = 28.11, SD = 3.74）， PCST-Video满意度较高（92.6%≥24,M = 28.93, SD = 3.57）。两种情况下的疼痛结果都朝着预期的方向变化，从A1改善到A3。讨论：PainPac是一种改善癌症疼痛管理的有前途的方法。在临床实践中，基于技术的行为干预可以减少障碍，提高干预的范围、可扩展性和可持续性。需要更大规模、更有力的随机试验来检验PainPac的疗效。临床试验注册号：ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05686122。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Psychosocial Oncology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Here is your single source of integrated information on providing the best psychosocial care possible from the knowledge available from many disciplines.The Journal of Psychosocial Oncology is an essential source for up-to-date clinical and research material geared toward health professionals who provide psychosocial services to cancer patients, their families, and their caregivers. The journal—the first interdisciplinary resource of its kind—is in its third decade of examining exploratory and hypothesis testing and presenting program evaluation research on critical areas, including: the stigma of cancer; employment and personal problems facing cancer patients; patient education.