Monitoring Chronic Pain: Comparing Wearable and Mobile Interfaces

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10069)

Abstract

Technologies to monitor patients are convenient for patients and can reduce health costs. Chronic pain is a pain that lasts more than 3 months and affects the welfare of patients. Pain is subjective and there are applications to self-report pain, but their adherence rates are low. The purpose of this article is the understanding of the characteristics of technology that helps the adoption of these systems. We have implemented two solutions (mobile application and wearable device), in order to compare them to measure the rate of user acceptance, and also to get feedback about fundamental features of interfaces to report pain levels. To evaluate the two solutions we conducted interviews with 12 people. The results showed that when given the choice between both devices, 67 % of the users preferred the wearable device over the mobile application, and 16.5 % preferred the mobile application over the wearable device. We also found that a device for reporting pain must be specific to this purpose, aesthetically pleasing and allow users to report easily and at the right time.

References

  1. 1.
    Ryu, S.: mHealth: new horizons for health through mobile technologies: based on the findings of the second global survey on eHealth. Healthc Inform. Res. (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Field, M.J., Grigsby, J.: Telemedicine and remote patient monitoring. JAMA 288(4), 423–425 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alahmadi, A., Soh, B.: A smart approach towards a mobile e-health monitoring system architecture. In: 2011 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems, pp. 1–5, November 2011Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ACPA. Glossary @ONLINE (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gureje, O., Von Korff, M., Simon, G.E., Gater, R.: Persistent pain and well-being: a world health organization study in primary care. JAMA 280(2), 147–151 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCaffrey, M., Beebe, A.: Giving narcotics for pain. Nursing 19(10), 161–165 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NIPC. Pain assessment scales @ONLINE (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawker, G.A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., French, M.: Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res. 63(S11), S240–S252 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson, D., Horn, S., Kersten, P., Turner-Stokes, L.: Development of a pictorial scale of pain intensity for patients with communication impairments: initial validation in a general population. Clin. Med. 6, 580–585 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williamson, A., Hoggart, B.: Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. Issues Clin. Nurs. 14, 798–804 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horgas, A.L.: Assessing pain in older adults with dementia @ONLINE (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garra, G., Singer, A.J., Taira, B.R., Chohan, J., Cardoz, H., Chisena, E., Thode, H.C.: Validation of the wong-baker faces pain rating scale in pediatric emergency department patients. Acad. Emerg. Med. 17(1), 50–54 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chhikara, A., Rice, A.S.C., McGregor, A.H., Bello, F.: In-house monitoring of low back pain related disability (impaired). In: 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS 2008, pp. 4507–4510, August 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spyridonis, F., Hansen, J., Gronli, T., Ghinea, G.: Paindroid: an android-based virtual reality application for pain assessment. Multimedia Tools Appl. 72(1), 191–206 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alakarppa, I., Riekki, J., Koukkula, R.: Pervasive pain monitoring system: user experiences and adoption requirements in the hospital and home environments. In: 3rd International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, PervasiveHealth 2009, pp. 1–8, April 2009Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rini, C., Williams, D.A., Broderick, J., Keefe, F.: Meeting them where they are: using the internet to deliver behavioral medicine interventions for pain. Transl. Behav. Med. 2(1), 82–92 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacLeod, H., Tang, A., Carpendale, S.: Personal informatics in chronic illness management. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface, GI 2013, pp. 149–156. Canadian Information Processing Society, Toronto (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang, Y., Zheng, H., Nugent, C., McCullagh, P., Black, N., Vowles, K.E., McCracken, L.: Feature selection and classification in supporting report-based self-management for people with chronic pain. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 15(1), 54–61 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jang, A., MacLean, D.L., Heer, J.: Bodydiagrams: Improving communication of pain symptoms through drawing. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2014, pp. 1153–1162. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Serif, T., Ghinea, G., Frank, A.O.: Visualizing pain data for wheelchair users: a ubiquitous approach. J. Mob. Multimed. 1(2), 161–177 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosser, B.A., Vowles, K.E., Keogh, E., Eccleston, C., Mountain, G.A.: Technologically-assisted behaviour change: a systematic review of studies of novel technologies for the management of chronic illness. J. Telemedicine Telecare 15(7), 327–338 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosser, B.A., Eccleston, C.: Smartphone application for pain management. J. Telemedicine Telecare 17(6), 308–320 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gimhae, G.-N.: Six human factors to acceptability of wearable computers. Int. J. Multimedia Ubiquitous Eng. 8(3) (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rantakari, J., Inget, V., Colley, A., Häkkilä, J : Charting design preferences on wellness wearables. In: Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference 2016, AH 2016, pp. 28:1–28:4. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeffs, E., Vollam, S., Young, J.D., Horsington, L., Lynch, B., Watkinson, P.J.: Wearable monitors for patients following discharge from an intensive care unit: practical lessons learnt from an observational study. J. Advanced Nurs. (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Iglesias, R., de Segura, N.G., Iturburu, M.: The elderly interacting with a digital agenda through an rfid pen and a touch screen. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Media Studies and Implementations That Help Improving Access to Disabled Users, MSIADU 2009, pp. 63–70. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ferron, M., Mana, N., Mich, O.: Mobile for older adults: towards designing multimodal interaction. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, MUM 2015, pp. 373–378. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Motti, V., Kohn, S., Caine, K.: Wearable Computing: a Human-centered View of Key Concepts, Application Domains, and Quality Factors. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, pp. 563–564, Toronto (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ferrari, A.: Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Technical report, Research Centre of the European Commission (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brooke, J.: Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Indus. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tullis, T., Albert, W.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations