Describing and visualizing the patient and caregiver experience of cancer pain in the home context using ecological momentary assessments
Issued Date
2023-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
20552076
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85169685136
Journal Title
Digital Health
Volume
9
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Digital Health Vol.9 (2023)
Suggested Citation
LeBaron V., Homdee N., Ogunjirin E., Patel N., Blackhall L., Lach J. Describing and visualizing the patient and caregiver experience of cancer pain in the home context using ecological momentary assessments. Digital Health Vol.9 (2023). doi:10.1177/20552076231194936 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/89858
Title
Describing and visualizing the patient and caregiver experience of cancer pain in the home context using ecological momentary assessments
Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Pain continues to be a difficult and pervasive problem for patients with cancer, and those who care for them. Remote health monitoring systems (RHMS), such as the Behavioral and Environmental Sensing and Intervention for Cancer (BESI-C), can utilize Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMAs) to provide a more holistic understanding of the patient and family experience of cancer pain within the home context. Methods: Participants used the BESI-C system for 2-weeks which collected data via EMAs deployed on wearable devices (smartwatches) worn by both patients with cancer and their primary family caregiver. We developed three unique EMA schemas that allowed patients and caregivers to describe patient pain events and perceived impact on quality of life from their own perspective. EMA data were analyzed to provide a descriptive summary of pain events and explore different types of data visualizations. Results: Data were collected from five (n = 5) patient-caregiver dyads (total 10 individual participants, 5 patients, 5 caregivers). A total of 283 user-initiated pain event EMAs were recorded (198 by patients; 85 by caregivers) over all 5 deployments with an average severity score of 5.4/10 for patients and 4.6/10 for caregivers’ assessments of patient pain. Average self-reported overall distress and pain interference levels (1 = least distress; 4 = most distress) were higher for caregivers ((Formula presented.) 3.02, (Formula presented.)) compared to patients ((Formula presented.) 2.82, (Formula presented.) 2.25, respectively) while perceived burden of partner distress was higher for patients (i.e., patients perceived caregivers to be more distressed, (Formula presented.) 3.21, than caregivers perceived patients to be distressed, (Formula presented.)). Data visualizations were created using time wheels, bubble charts, box plots and line graphs to graphically represent EMA findings. Conclusion: Collecting data via EMAs is a viable RHMS strategy to capture longitudinal cancer pain event data from patients and caregivers that can inform personalized pain management and distress-alleviating interventions.