Strategies to optimise the health equity impact of digital pain self-reporting tools: a series of multi-stakeholder focus groups.

Background: There are avoidable differences (i.e., inequities) in the prevalence and distribution of chronic pain across diverse populations, as well as in access to and outcomes of pain management services. Digital pain self-reporting tools have the potential to reduce or exacerbate these inequities. This study aimed to better understand how to optimise the health equity impact of digital pain self-reporting tools on people who are experiencing (or are at risk of) digital pain inequities.
Methods: This was a qualitative study, guided by the Health Equity Impact Assessment tool-digital health supplement (HEIA-DH). We conducted three scoping focus groups with multiple stakeholders to identify the potential impacts of digital pain self-reporting tools and strategies to manage these impacts. Each group focused on one priority group experiencing digital pain inequities, including older adults, ethnic minorities, and people living in socio-economically deprived areas. A fourth consensus focus group was organised to discuss and select impact management strategies. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a framework approach. We derived codes, grouped them under four pre-defined categories from the HEIA-DH, and illustrated them with participants' quotes.
Results: A total of fifteen people living with musculoskeletal pain conditions and thirteen professionals took part. Participants described how digital pain self-reports can have a positive health equity impact by better capturing pain fluctuations and enriching patient-provider communication, which in turn can enhance clinical decisions and self-management practices. Conversely, participants identified that incorrect interpretation of pain reports, lack of knowledge of pain terminologies, and digital (e.g., no access to technology) and social (e.g., gender stereotyping) exclusions may negatively impact on people's health equity. The participants identified 32 strategies, of which 20 were selected as being likely to mitigate these negative health equity impacts. Example strategies included, e.g., option to customise self-reporting tools in line with users' personal preferences, or resources to better explain how self-reported pain data will be used to build trust.
Conclusion: Linked to people's personal and social characteristics, there are equity-based considerations for developing accessible digital pain self-reporting tools, as well as resources and skills to enable the adoption and use of these tools among priority groups. Future research should focus on implementing these equity-based considerations or strategies identified by our study and monitoring their impact on the health equity of people living with chronic pain.
Competing Interests: Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study received an ethical approval from the University of Manchester’s Research Ethics Committee (ref # 2022–14094-23756). Informed consent was obtained from all study participants. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)