ArticleDigital health
Feasibility and acceptability of design and conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial evaluating eVIS as a digital support for physical activity in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs: A randomised pilot study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07081737 (The Future of Pain Management), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
The Future of Pain Management: Can Person-centred and Precision AI-Based Decision Support Enhance Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain?
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with chronic pain often struggle to engage in physical activity despite its health benefits. The eVISualisation of physical activity and pain intervention (eVIS) was developed to support adherence to physical activity plans in Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs (IPRPs) by visualising activity, pain levels, pain interference, and pharmacological use. This pilot study assesses the feasibility and acceptability of trial design and trial conduct of a registry-based randomised clinical trial (R-RCT). Method: This randomised clinical pilot study included the first 10% (n = 39, mean age 43.5, 74.4% females) of the R-RCT sample (n≈400). Participants with non-cancer chronic pain from six IPRP units were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (IPRP + eVIS, n = 19) or the control group (IPRP, n = 20). Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated using pre-defined criteria on recruitment- and data collection procedures (e.g., inclusion rates, representativeness, adverse events), physiotherapists' ratings of trial design and conduct (e.g., acceptability, feasibility), and outcome data characteristics and completeness (e.g., adherence, data accessibility). Results: Recruitment was largely feasible, though attrition differences and the need for refined eligibility screening were noted. Physiotherapists cited time and implementation challenges. Both groups had satisfactory data completeness, but the control group showed lower adherence to daily reporting in the final third of the study. The intervention group had greater improvements in physical health, with 19.5% more participants achieving the minimum clinically important difference (≥3) on the physical component summary scale (PCS). No adverse events occurred. Conclusion: With minor adjustments, the R-RCT design is mostly feasible, though some challenges to feasibility were identified and addressed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.