Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33242011›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

Integrating a Web-Based Self-Management Tool (Managing Joint Pain on the Web and Through Resources) for People With Osteoarthritis-Related Joint Pain With a Web-Based Social Network Support Tool (Generating Engagement in Network Involvement): Design, Development, and Early Evaluation.

Paul Clarkson, Ivaylo Vassilev, Anne Rogers, Charlotte Brooks, Nicky Wilson, Jem Lawson, Jo Adams

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Paul ClarksonNIHR ARC Wessex, Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5955-5711
Ivaylo VassilevSocial Networks Health and Wellbeing Research Group, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2206-8247
Anne RogersSocial Networks Health and Wellbeing Research Group, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7231-790X
Charlotte BrooksSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4461-1247
Nicky WilsonKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7404-7360
Jem LawsonCentre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5743-1974
Jo AdamsNIHR ARC Wessex, Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-7060
Arthritis UK · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundJoint pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) is highly prevalent and can be extremely debilitating. Programs to support self-management of joint pain can be effective; however, most programs are designed to build self-efficacy and rarely engage social networks. Digital interventions are considered acceptable by people with joint pain. However, many existing resources are not accessible for or developed alongside people with lower health literacy, which disproportionately affects people with OA.

objectiveThis study aims to design and develop an accessible digital self-management tool for people with joint pain and integrate this with an existing social network activation tool (Generating Engagement in Network Involvement [GENIE]) and to explore the feasibility of these linked tools for supporting the management of joint pain.

methodsThe study was conducted in 2 phases: a design and development stage and a small-scale evaluation. The first phase followed the person-based approach to establish guiding principles for the development of a new site (Managing joint Pain On the Web and through Resources [EMPOWER]) and its integration with GENIE. People with joint pain were recruited from libraries, a community café, and an exercise scheme to take part in 3 focus groups. EMPOWER was tested and refined using think-aloud interviews (n=6). In the second phase, participants were recruited through the web via libraries to participate in a small-scale evaluation using the LifeGuide platform to record use over a 1-month period. Participants (n=6) were asked to complete evaluation questionnaires on their experiences. The NASSS (nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability) framework was used to explore the feasibility of the sites.

resultsThe focus groups established guiding principles for the development of the tool. These included ensuring accessibility and relevance for people with OA-related joint pain and recognizing that joint pain is the reason for seeking support, trust, social facilitation, and goal setting. Think-aloud interviews identified issues with user experience and site navigation and the need for professional input for referral and goal setting, confusion, and tensions over the role of GENIE and site connectivity. Participants expected the sites to be specific to their pain-related needs. EMPOWER was accessed 18 times; 6 users registered with the site during the evaluation study. Participants mostly explored information pages on being active and being a healthy weight. Only one participant undertook goal setting and 4 participants visited the GENIE website.

conclusionsUsing the NASSS framework, we identified the complexity associated with integrating EMPOWER and GENIE. The value proposition domain highlighted the technical and conceptual complexity associated with integrating approaches. Although identified as theoretically achievable, the integration of differing propositions may have caused cognitive and practical burdens for users. Nevertheless, we believe that both approaches have a distinct role in the self-management of joint pain.

Indexed as

internetjoint painosteoarthritisself-managementsocial networks

Identifiers

PMID33242011
PMCPMC7728529
OpenAlexW3090458733

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.