Digital Pain Mapping and Tracking in Patients With Chronic Pain: Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital pain mapping allows for remote and ecological momentary assessment in patients over multiple time points spanning days to months. Frequent ecological assessments may reveal tendencies and fluctuations more clearly and provide insights into the trajectory of a patient's pain. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to remotely map and track the intensity and distribution of pain and discomfort (eg, burning, aching, and tingling) in patients with nonmalignant spinal referred pain over 12 weeks using a web-based app for digital pain mapping. The secondary aim is to explore the barriers of use by determining the differences in clinical and user characteristics between patients with good (regular users) and poor (nonregular users) reporting compliance. METHODS: Patients (N=91; n=53 women) with spinal referred pain were recruited using web-based and traditional in-house strategies. Patients were asked to submit weekly digital pain reports for 12 weeks. Each pain report consisted of digital pain drawings on a pseudo-three-dimensional body chart and pain intensity ratings. The pain drawings captured the distribution of pain and discomfort (pain quality descriptors) expressed as the total extent and location. Differences in weekly pain reports were explored using the total extent (pixels), current and usual pain intensity ratings, frequency of quality descriptor selection, and Jaccard similarity index. Validated e-questionnaires were completed at baseline to determine the patients' characteristics (adapted Danish National Spine Register), disability (Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index), and pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale) profiles. Barriers of use were assessed at 6 weeks using a health care-related usability and acceptance e-questionnaire and a self-developed technology-specific e-questionnaire to assess the accessibility and ease of access of the pain mapping app. Associations between total extent, pain intensity, disability, and catastrophizing were explored to further understand pain. Differences between regular and nonregular users were assessed to understand the pain mapping app reporting compliance. RESULTS: Fluctuations were identified in pain reports for total extent and pain intensity ratings (P<.001). However, quality descriptor selection (P=.99) and pain drawing (P=.49), compared using the Jaccard index, were similar over time. Interestingly, current pain intensity was greater than usual pain intensity (P<.001), suggesting that the timing of pain reporting coincided with a more intense pain experience than usual. Usability and acceptance were similar between regular and nonregular users. Regular users were younger (P<.001) and reported a larger total extent of pain than nonregular users (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine digital reports of pain intensity and distribution in patients with nonmalignant spinal referred pain remotely for a sustained period and barriers of use and compliance using a digital pain mapping app. Differences in age, pain distribution, and current pain intensity may influence reporting behavior and compliance.

Modifiable motion graphics for capturing sensations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between an embodied sensory experience and the ability to translate the perception of this experience visually using modifiable motion graphics. METHODS: A custom-designed software was developed to enable users to modify a motion graphic in real-time. The motion graphics were designed to depict realistic visualizations of pain quality descriptors, such as tingling and burning. Participants (N = 34) received an electrical stimulation protocol known to elicit sensations of tingling. The protocol consisted of eight stimulation intensities ranging from 2-6mA delivered, in a randomized fashion and repeated three times, to the index finger. Immediately after each stimulus, participants drew the area of the evoked sensation on a digital body chart of the hand. Participants then modified the motion graphic of tingling by adjusting two parameters, namely the speed (rate of dots disappearing and re-appearing) and density of these dots in the drawn area. Then, participants rated the perceived intensity and selected the most appropriate pain quality descriptor. RESULTS: There was an increase in the area, density, and perceived intensity ratings as the electrical stimulation intensity increased (P<0.001). The density of the motion graphic, but not speed, correlated with perceived intensity ratings (0.69, P<0.001) and electrical stimulation intensities (0.63, P<0.01). The descriptor 'tingling' was predominantly selected in the range of 3-4.5mA and was often followed by 'stabbing' as the electrical intensity increased. DISCUSSION: The motion graphic tested was perceived to reflect a tingling sensation, the stimulation protocol elicited a tingling sensation, and participants adjusted one of the two motion graphic features systematically. In conclusion, an embodied sensation, such as tingling, maybe visually represented similarly between individuals. These findings create research, clinical, and commercial opportunities that utilize psychophysics to explore, visualize, and quantify changes in embodied sensory experiences in response to known stimuli.