Users' perceptions on digital visualization of neuropathic cancer-related pain.

Quality pain management implies a thorough pain assessment with structured communication between patients and healthcare providers. Pain distribution is an important dimension of cancer pain. Assessment of pain distribution is commonly performed on a pain body map. This study explores how a computerized pain body map may function as a communication tool and visualize pain in patients with advanced cancer. In previous studies, we have developed a tablet-based computerized pain body map for use in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to adapt the computerized pain body map program to patients with neuropathic cancer-related pain, and to develop a separate interface for healthcare providers. We also wanted to investigate the perceived usefulness of this system among patients and healthcare providers. Both patients and healthcare providers perceived that the visualization of pain in the computerized pain body map system had potential to be a positive contribution to clinical pain management, and to improve collaboration between healthcare providers.

Development and testing of a computerized pain body map in patients with advanced cancer.

CONTEXT: Pain localization is an important part of pain assessment. Development of pain tools for self-report should include expert and patient input, and patient testing in large samples. OBJECTIVES: To develop a computerized pain body map (CPBM) for use in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Three studies were conducted: 1) an international expert survey and a pilot study guiding the contents and layout of the CPBM, 2) clinical testing in an international symptom assessment study in eight countries and 17 centers (N = 533), and 3) comparing patient pain markings on computer and paper body maps (N = 92). RESULTS: Study 1: 22 pain experts and 28 patients participated. A CPBM with anterior and posterior whole body views was developed for marking pain locations, supplemented by pain intensity ratings for each location. Study 2: 533 patients (286 male, 247 female, mean age 62 years) participated; 80% received pain medication and 81% had metastatic disease. Eighty-five percent completed CPBM as intended. Mean ± SD number of marked pain locations was 1.8 ± 1.2. Aberrant markings (15%) were mostly related to software problems. No differences were found regarding age, gender, cognitive/physical performance, or previous computer experience. Study 3: 70% of the patients had identical markings on the computer and paper maps. Only four patients had completely different markings on the two maps. CONCLUSION: This first version of CPBM was well accepted by patients with advanced cancer. However, several areas for improvement were revealed, providing a basis for the development of the next version, which is subject to further international testing.