User-Driven Development of a Digital Behavioral Intervention for Chronic Pain: Multimethod Multiphase Study, 2025, Taygar et al

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
Abstract

Background:
Recent research shows that chronic pain affects 27% of the adult population. For many, pain significantly impairs quality of life and everyday functioning. Behavioral interventions have shown utility, but access remains limited. Digital health solutions can increase reach, but there is a need for user-friendly, feasible, and evidence-based digital interventions.

Objective:
This study aimed to clarify how a digital behavioral intervention for people with chronic pain can be developed through a user-centered approach to address the needs and preferences of the target population.

Methods:
This study used a multimethod approach involving end users, namely, patients with chronic pain and therapists, to develop prototypes for a digital behavioral intervention across 3 phases. In the preparation phase (phase 0), fictional patient personas (n=3) were created to represent the diversity of the target population while emphasizing transdiagnostic features across people with chronic pain. In the design phase (phase 1), qualitative data from focus groups with patients (n=5; aged 37-51 years; 4/5, 80% women; 2/5, 40% diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; 3/5, 60% either undiagnosed or uncertain about their diagnosis) and therapists (n=12 licensed psychologists; aged 29-64 years; 9/12, 75% women) were collected to explore end-user preferences for the intervention design and content. In the testing phase (phase 2), the initial full prototype of the digital intervention was piloted with patients (n=11; aged 36-58 years; 9/11, 82% women; with diverse diagnoses, including migraine, arthritis, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome, hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, herniated disc, chronic fatigue syndrome, and 1/11, 9% cases of undiagnosed pain) and therapists (n=3 licensed psychologists; aged 36-58 y; 3/3, 100% women). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to structure analyses of end-user feedback.

Results:
On the basis of end-user input, a 6-week digital behavioral intervention for chronic pain was created. Focus groups highlighted the importance of accessibility and adaptability of the digital intervention, emphasizing the need for tailored content, flexibility (eg, contact with the therapist via asynchronous messaging, telephone, or video calls), and user-friendly design (eg, easy navigation between modules, short microsessions, and visualizations). Average weekly ratings (scale from 1=not at all to 7=very much) by patients during pilot-testing indicated that the intervention was helpful (mean range 4.27-5.45, SD range 1.20-2.20), enjoyable (mean range 3.81-4.81, SD range 1.12-2.08), and understandable (mean range 4.45-6, SD range 1.30-1.86), suggesting initial acceptability and usability of the intervention.

Conclusions:
The results illustrated the utility of the patient personas when preparing, of the focus groups when designing, and of the end-user feedback when testing this new digital intervention for people with chronic pain. The findings indicated that the intervention is promising while also providing relevant end-user suggestions (eg, video content, text-to-speech function, and add-on modules) to guide further improvements.

Open access
 
"The DAHLIA treatment (prototype version 1.0) consisted of 4 self-guided microsessions per week for a total of 24 sessions delivered over 6 weeks. Moreover, patients had weekly contact with a therapist through a 30-minute phone or video call. The digital intervention was offered through the Swedish health care system implemented into a digital system called 1177, the national health care web platform in Sweden [49], in collaboration with health care providers from Region Stockholm and Kalmar and health care developers and digital designers in Region Kalmar and supported by the industry partner Inera for maintenance. The 1177 platform is a secure system that ensures confidentiality via Sweden’s public e-identification systems (BankID, Freja eID, and Foreign eID).

The intervention was delivered via 1177’s Stöd och Behandling (support and treatment) feature, which is designed to support digital care programs. While the platform provides a structured framework enabling health care providers to deliver digital care programs, the technical architecture imposes certain constraints, especially on the design and customization. These constraints include limited flexibility in the user interface design and multimedia services. Therefore, interactive features (eg, videos and exercises) could only be implemented through preexisting templates or external resources. In addition, as the platform does not support real-time communication (ie, video calls and phone calls), each region complemented the intervention by using its secure internal systems to conduct these interactions."
 

Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Model​

The DAHLIA treatment program is based on learning theory [33], with the fear-avoidance model [3] and the psychological flexibility model [4,5] integrated into a comprehensive conceptual model. The primary treatment objective is to increase resilience (ie, being able to sustain living a fulfilling life in the presence of distress) [34] to chronic pain and distress by improving behavioral self-management skills relevant to well-being and functioning [35].
 
Did the end users have any involvement in deciding what would meet their needs- product concept or here’s what we’re doing let’s get a few users in to test the design
 
Clueless nonsense, as an app. Obviously the premise is false, those programs have zero utility, and the conceptual model is the same old that has never been found to have any utility. Also, no one has thought of that before, or tried it before, or pretended like it has utility before. Nope. Like the very first time.
Therapists expressed that they perceived the content as relevant, valid, and evidence based. Patients did not have any input regarding the evidence-based content.
Ah, well, then. It's evidence-based because the evidence-based people say so.

I was only looking at whether participants continued using the app, which is about the only valuable validation, but it looks like it was a time-limited trial. The patients' comments reflect about as much enthusiasm for the app as receiving a pebble as a present, and are clearly more polite than anything. The therapists' comments make it clear all of this is fully aspirational, that it would be nice if something existed that did any of those things, but no such thing exists.

For sure, almost no one would be using that app, and likely no longer than a handful of times before they delete it. This entire methodological framework with pragmatic trials based on made-up models is worse than useless. It should be stopped, it serves absolutely no purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom