ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2026
Systematic evaluation of commercially available pain-management mHealth apps for chronic pain in the United Kingdom.
Article in British journal of health psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Systematic evaluation of commercially available pain-management mHealth apps for chronic pain in the United Kingdom.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSelf-management is central in chronic pain care, and mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) offer scalable tools to support symptom monitoring and management. Although promising, these apps vary in quality, adaptability, and integration of evidence-based behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Many remain unregulated and under-evaluated, leaving their benefits for pain management unclear. We systematically evaluated the quality of commercially available pain management apps in the United Kingdom and examined the prevalence of pain-related BCTs and adaptive features. DESIGN AND
methodsFreely available English-language apps from the 'Health and Fitness' or 'Medical' categories in the Apple® and Google Play® stores were screened and assessed for quality using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS; 1 = inadequate, 5 = excellent) and coded for BCTs and adaptive features.
resultsTwenty-three apps were included, with a mean MARS score of 3.03 (range = 1.8-4.6). Five scored >4.0, while 39% scored 3.0-3.9, indicating moderate quality. Apps included a mean of 3.3 BCTs, most commonly self-monitoring (87%), instruction (61%), and behaviour-health links (52%). Social support (13%) and goal setting (17%) were rare. An average of 2.3 adaptive mechanisms were identified, with proximal outcomes in all apps and intervention options in 70%, but decision points and tailoring variables were infrequent.
conclusionCommercially available pain apps in the United Kingdom are generally of moderate quality, with limited integration of social, goal-setting, and adaptive features. Greater personalization is needed to strengthen engagement and clinical impact in digital pain self-management.
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.