MEMPHIS: a smartphone app using psychological approaches for women with chronic pelvic pain presenting to gynaecology clinics: a randomised feasibility trial

Gordon Forbes, Sian Newton, Clara Cantalapiedra Calvete, Judy Birch, Julie Dodds, Liz Steed, Carol Rivas, Khalid Khan, Frank Röhricht, Stephanie Taylor, Brennan C Kahan, Elizabeth Ball, Gordon Forbes, Sian Newton, Clara Cantalapiedra Calvete, Judy Birch, Julie Dodds, Liz Steed, Carol Rivas, Khalid Khan, Frank Röhricht, Stephanie Taylor, Brennan C Kahan, Elizabeth Ball

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of a randomised trial of a modified, pre-existing, mindfulness meditation smartphone app for women with chronic pelvic pain.

Design: Three arm randomised feasibility trial.

Setting: Women were recruited at two gynaecology clinics in the UK. Interventions were delivered via smartphone or computer at a location of participants choosing.

Participants: Women were eligible for the study if they were over 18, had been experiencing organic or non-organic chronic pelvic pain for 6 months or more, and had access to a computer or smartphone. 90 women were randomised.

Interventions: Daily mindfulness meditation delivered by smartphone app, an active control app which delivered muscle relaxation techniques, and usual care without app. Interventions were delivered over 60 days.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Outcomes included length of recruitment, follow-up rates, adherence to the app interventions, and clinical outcomes measured at baseline, two, three and 6 months.

Results: The target sample size was recruited in 145 days. Adherence to the app interventions was extremely low (mean app use 1.8 days mindfulness meditation group, 7.0 days active control). Fifty-seven (63%) women completed 6-month follow-up, and 75 (83%) women completed at least one postrandomisation follow-up. The 95% CIs for clinical outcomes were consistent with no benefit from the mindfulness meditation app; for example, mean differences in pain acceptance scores at 60 days (higher scores are better) were -2.3 (mindfulness meditation vs usual care, 95% CI: -6.6 to 2.0) and -4.0 (mindfulness meditation vs active control, 95% CI: -8.1 to 0.1).

Conclusions: Despite high recruitment and adequate follow-up rates, demonstrating feasibility, the extremely low adherence suggests a definitive randomised trial of the mindfulness meditation app used in this study is not warranted. Future research should focus on improving patient engagement.

Trial registration numbers: NCT02721108; ISRCTN10925965; Results.

Keywords: Randomised controlled trial; chronic pain; meditation; mindfulness; mobile applications; pelvic pain.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Daily app use (defined as completing >90% of a session) within 60 days of randomisation in the intervention and active control groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean (95% CI) chronic pain acceptance score (CPAQ) and estimated treatment effect (95% CI) at each follow-up time point (CPAQ). Higher scores indicate better health outcomes.

References

    1. Latthe P, Latthe M, Say L, et al. . WHO systematic review of prevalence of chronic pelvic pain: a neglected reproductive health morbidity. BMC Public Health 2006;6:177 10.1186/1471-2458-6-177
    1. Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, et al. . Chronic pelvic pain in the community--symptoms, investigations, and diagnoses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1149–55. 10.1067/mob.2001.112904
    1. Daniels JP, Khan KS. Chronic pelvic pain in women. BMJ 2010;341:c4834 10.1136/bmj.c4834
    1. Moore SJ KS. Green Top Guideline No 41: the initial management of Chronic Pelvic Pain : Gynaecologists TrcoOa. In, 2012.
    1. Peters AA, van Dorst E, Jellis B, et al. . A randomized clinical trial to compare two different approaches in women with chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:740–4.
    1. Romão APMS, Gorayeb R, Romão GS, et al. . High levels of anxiety and depression have a negative effect on quality of life of women with chronic pelvic pain. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:707–11. 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02034.x
    1. Stones RW, Price C. Health services for women with chronic pelvic pain. J R Soc Med 2002;95:531–5. 10.1177/014107680209501102
    1. Ball EF, Nur Shafina Muhammad Sharizan E, Franklin G, et al. . Does mindfulness meditation improve chronic pain? A systematic review. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017;29:359–66. 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000417
    1. Hilton L, Hempel S, Ewing BA, et al. . Mindfulness meditation for chronic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Behav Med 2017;51:199–213. 10.1007/s12160-016-9844-2
    1. Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S, et al. . Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 2004;11:230–41. 10.1093/clipsy.bph077
    1. Kold M, Hansen T, Vedsted-Hansen H, et al. . Mindfulness-based psychological intervention for coping with pain in endometriosis. Nordic Psychology 2012;64:2–16. 10.1080/19012276.2012.693727
    1. Fox SD, Flynn E, Allen RH. Mindfulness meditation for women with chronic pelvic pain: a pilot study. J Reprod Med 2011;56:158–62.
    1. Salmon P, Sephton S, Weissbecker I, et al. . Mindfulness meditation in clinical practice. Cogn Behav Pract 2004;11:434–46. 10.1016/S1077-7229(04)80060-9
    1. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, et al. . Consort 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016;2:64 10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8
    1. Ball E, Newton S, Kahan BC, et al. . Using a mindfulness APP for women with chronic pelvic pain: qualitative data of user experience and lessons learnt. 2018. Submitted.
    1. Ball E, Newton S, Kahan BC, et al. . Smartphone App using mindfulness meditation for women with chronic pelvic pain (Memphis): protocol for a randomized feasibility trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2018;7:e8 10.2196/resprot.7720
    1. Fish RA, McGuire B, Hogan M, et al. . Validation of the chronic pain acceptance questionnaire (CPAQ) in an Internet sample and development and preliminary validation of the CPAQ-8. Pain 2010;149:435–43. 10.1016/j.pain.2009.12.016
    1. Brooke J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 1996;189:4–7.
    1. Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, et al. . Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain 1992;50:133–49. 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90154-4
    1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The mos 36-item short-form health survey (Sf-36). I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83.
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
    1. Feldman G, Hayes A, Kumar S, et al. . Mindfulness and emotion regulation: the development and initial validation of the cognitive and affective mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2007;29:177–90. 10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8
    1. Nicholas MK. The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: taking pain into account. Eur J Pain 2007;11:153–63. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.008
    1. Learman LA, Huang AJ, Nakagawa S, et al. . Development and validation of a sexual functioning measure for use in diverse women's health outcome studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:710.e1–8. 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.036
    1. Paterson C. Measuring outcomes in primary care: a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. BMJ 1996;312:1016–20. 10.1136/bmj.312.7037.1016
    1. Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2004;10:307–12. 10.1111/j.2002.384.doc.x
    1. Teare MD, Dimairo M, Shephard N, et al. . Sample size requirements to estimate key design parameters from external pilot randomised controlled trials: a simulation study. Trials 2014;15:264 10.1186/1745-6215-15-264
    1. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. 3rd edn College Station, Tex: Stata Press Publication, 2012.
    1. Kahan BC, Jairath V, Doré CJ, et al. . The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies. Trials 2014;15:139 10.1186/1745-6215-15-139
    1. White IR, Horton NJ, Carpenter J, et al. . Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ 2011;342:d40 10.1136/bmj.d40
    1. White IR, Thompson SG. Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials. Stat Med 2005;24:993–1007. 10.1002/sim.1981
    1. Barrera M, Castro FG. A heuristic framework for the cultural adaptation of interventions. Clin Psychol Sci & Pract 2006;13:311–6. 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00043.x

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel