Skip to main content
PLOS Digital Health logoLink to PLOS Digital Health
. 2024 Jul 10;3(7):e0000342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000342

Patient self-reported pain and nausea via smartphone following day care surgery, first year results: An observational cohort study

Bram Thiel 1,*, Jamey Blaauboer 2, Chiem Seesing 2, Jamshid Radmanesh 3, Seppe Koopman 4, Cor Kalkman 5, Marc Godfried 1
Editor: Haleh Ayatollahi6
PMCID: PMC11236166  PMID: 38985704

Abstract

Contact with the hospital is usually limited for patients after day care surgery. Dedicated smartphone applications can improve communication and possibly enhance outcomes. The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate patients’ self-reported pain and nausea and assess the success of routine implementation of a smartphone application for outcome reporting. During preoperative assessment, patients were instructed to download and activate the smartphone application to report pain, nausea and to be in contact with the hospital after discharge. Main outcome was the number of patients actively using the smartphone application and the incidence of pain and nausea on postoperative day 1 to 7. In total, 4952 patients were included in the study. A total of 592 (12%) participants downloaded the application, of whom 351 (7%) were active users. A total of 4360 (88%) participants refrained from downloading the application. 56% (2,769) were female, the median age was 46 (18–92), and 4286 (87%) were classified as 1 or 2 American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA). Postoperative pain was experienced by 174 (76%) of 229 active users on postoperative day (POD) 1 and decreased to 44 (44%) of 100 active users on POD7. Postoperative nausea was experienced by 63 (28%) of 229 active users on POD1 and decreased to 12 (12%) of 100 active users on POD7. Female sex (p .000), socioeconomic status (p .001), and surgical severity (p .001) showed statistically significant differences between active users, non-active users, and non-downloaders. Most patients active with the application experienced pain and nausea on the first and second day after discharge. Only a minority of the patients used the application. Those who used it were satisfied with the possibilities offered to them. Future research should focus on increasing the uptake and effect of this application on the quality of recovery.

Author summary

In the past, surgical recovery mainly occurred in hospitals. However, advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques and anaesthesia have enabled us, to allow patients to recover at home after day care surgery. It is common practice that we provide patients with verbal and written instructions for managing their pain and nausea after discharge. Nevertheless, we have noticed that patients often face challenges when attempting to contact the hospital in case of severe pain or nausea, and as healthcare professionals, we often lack insight into their recovery at home. To address these issues and improve patient care, we implemented a smartphone application called the OLVG Pain app specifically for our day care surgical patients. The application empowers our patients to regularly report their pain and nausea scores and request consultations or adjustments to their medication as needed. Among the 4952 patients in our study, only a mere 7% actively used the app. We have found that postoperative pain and nausea were predominantly reported by the active users on postoperative day 1 and 2. The app’s low uptake and usage suggest that there may be potential barriers related to the digital divide, particularly among our patient population. Further research is needed to explore these barriers, improve adoption rates, and assess the app’s impact on postoperative recovery.

Introduction

Previously, surgical recovery was typically performed in hospitals. Today, with the adoption of minimally invasive surgical procedures and modern anaesthesia techniques, patients can recover at home after surgery in day care. This shift has resulted in an increase in the number of day care procedures performed, as they are cost-effective and allow for earlier discharge [1]. In practice, discharge from day care surgery is possible as soon as vital signs are stabilized and the patient feels comfortable. The patient then receives verbal and written instructions on how to act in case of pain and nausea [2]. Moreover, the patient is discharged with a prescription for analgesics and antiemetic’s, if deemed necessary. The importance of effective postoperative pain management has been demonstrated by a recent randomized controlled trial showing an association between a high pain level and poor or intermediate quality of recovery [3].

However, patients often encounter difficulties when attempting to contact the hospital by phone in cases of severe pain or nausea. In turn, healthcare professionals involved often have little insight into the recovery trajectory of their patients at home. Remote monitoring with a direct feedback loop between patients and healthcare professionals to tailor pain and nausea management could overcome these problems and improve clinical patient outcomes [4].

Since February 2020, we have provided day care surgical patients in our hospital with a smartphone application, the OLVG pain app, which allows them to report their pain and nausea scores regularly. Furthermore, they could use the app to request consultation with the hospital for advice or adjustment of their medication. This dedicated application was developed in collaboration with patients and evaluated in a proof-of-concept study of 50 hospitalized patients and 12 hospital stakeholders, such as anaesthetists and software engineers. The results showed that the smartphone application was user-friendly and had high satisfaction among patients and stakeholders, with outcomes comparable to pain assessments by nurses [5].

Despite the potential benefits of eHealth tools and mobile apps in patient care, their use is largely driven by optimistic rather than evidence-based assumptions [6]. The present study aimed to contribute to the evidence of mobile health by evaluating self-reported postoperative pain and nausea scores of patients using the app one year after its implementation in day care. In addition, we evaluated the uptake and actual use of the app by the patients to assess whether the routine provision of such a tool is feasible.

Methods

Study design and setting

From February 2nd 2020 to March 29th2021, a retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in OLVG Hospital, a large teaching hospital with two locations in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Annually, over 8.500 day care surgical interventions are performed in OLVG.

Participants and perioperative anaesthesia practice

The following inclusion criteria were required: age >18 years and scheduled for day care surgery. The exclusion criterion was unplanned stay in the hospital after day care surgery.

During the preoperative assessment, information about the type of anaesthesia, medication, and the need for preoperative fasting was explained. The patient was also informed about the OLVG Pain app and received instructions for its use. A summary with the instructions was sent by e-mail or letter. Between January 2021 and March 2021, a researcher (CS) was available at the day care ward for assistance with downloading the app on the patient’s smartphone and connecting it to their medical records.

After downloading the app, the patients entered their surnames, dates of birth, and gender. They were asked to consent to using their anonymized data for research purposes and to allow the app to send reminder notifications. Administrative staff verified the patient’s identity and connected the app to their medical records in EPIC (1979–2022 Epic Systems Corporation, Wisconsin, United States). Hands-on instructions were provided by one of the researchers if required.

Anaesthesia, postoperative pain (POP) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were managed according to the standards of the Dutch Society of Anaesthetists (NVA) [7,8]. POP during admission was managed with acetaminophen, naproxen, and in cases of expected severe pain with oxycodone. PONV prophylaxis for patients receiving general anaesthesia was intraoperatively managed with dexamethasone and granisetron. In case of PONV, available treatment options were granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide, and domperidone.

Patients were discharged with written and verbal instructions by the nurse on how to manage POP and PONV and how to take care of the surgical wound. They received a medication box containing analgesic and antiemetic medication for three days postoperative. Two medication boxes were used in this study. In the case of minor surgical procedures, the patient received paracetamol, naproxen, pantoprazole, and metoclopramide. In the case of intermediate surgical procedures, long-acting oxycodone was added for the first postoperative day.

Patients were able to report their pain and nausea for up to seven days postoperative using the smartphone application ‘OLVG Pain app’. The app sent three daily reminder notifications; however, the reporting was voluntary. Pain and nausea scores were displayed on the patients’ electronic charts in the app. Data were obtained from the patients’ medical records (Epic Systems Corporation. 2020. Epic Hyperspace). Data of patients active with the app were aggregated and displayed on a healthcare professional monitoring dashboard, which was observed daily by a medical assistant or physician assistant trained in pain and nausea assessments. If patients reported unbearable pain or nausea and requested assistance, they were contacted by message (via EPIC patient e-mail) or by telephone.

Smartphone application

The OLVG pain app was developed in collaboration between patients, the patient council (advisory board of patients affiliated with the hospital), healthcare professionals, the Dutch Society of Anaesthesiology and Logicapps. As was commissioned by the Department of Anaesthesiology of OLVG Hospital. The usability of the application was evaluated in a proof of concept study amongst 50 patients and 12 stakeholders (e.g. anaesthesiologists, patients from patient council) [5]. Both patients and stakeholders agreed that the application was easy to use, and its simplicity and design were well suited for pain recording. Furthermore, patients were willing and motivated to use the application for recording their pain. The difference in median pain intensity scores between those recorded by patients using the app and those recorded by nurses was not statistically significant. Two important recommendations from the proof of concept study have been implemented in the current version; the ability to also capture nausea as a patient-reported outcome and the direct transfer of the entered data to the electronic patient record. The app was designed for use on smartphones and tablets with Android 5.0 or higher and IOS 11.0 or higher operating systems. The following ‘in-app’ questions regarding postoperative pain were asked: Are you in pain? (Fig 1); How much pain do you have: 0 to 10 on numerical rating scale (NRS)? (Fig 2), Is your pain bearable? (Fig 3), Are you hindered by pain?, Do you feel something must be done to relieve your pain?. Nausea assessment in the app was based on the Myles Nausea Impact Scale [9], which assesses the presence of nausea, vomiting, and whether the patient requested treatment for nausea. The app automatically ended the 7-day postoperative follow-up with four closeout questions addressing overall pain, nausea, satisfaction with the app, and whether the medical assistant or physician assistant responded in time. The application was connected to the electronic medical record through a secure FHIR HL7 server connection.

Fig 1. Are you in pain?

Fig 1

Fig 2. How much pain do you have: 0 to 10 on numerical rating scale (NRS)?

Fig 2

Fig 3. Is your pain bearable?

Fig 3

Outcome

The primary outcome was the incidence of patients with self-reported postoperative pain and nausea based on their response to the questions; Are you in pain?, Are you nauseous?, with the possible answers ‘yes’ or ‘no’ after daycare surgery at postoperative day (POD) 1 to 7.

Secondary outcomes for POD 1 up to POD 7 were: Pain intensity reported with the ‘in-app’ numeric rating scale. Incidence of unbearable postoperative pain and patients requiring additional pain management. Incidence of nausea and patients requiring additional treatment. Uptake of the application and differences in characteristics between active users and non-users of the application. Overall experienced pain, nausea and satisfaction with the application and received assistance.

Data collection, Statistical analysis and reporting

Data were extracted from the OLVG data warehouse after running a query with the inclusion criteria with help of a software specialist (JR). Researchers BT, CS, and JB checked the data for completeness and manually added the missing patients or values. Additionally, we collected data on the socioeconomic status (SES) of the participants provided by Statistics Netherlands (CBS). The SES score is a representation of how municipalities, neighbourhoods, and communities in the Netherlands compare with each other. The average SES score is approximately 0; a higher score indicates that residents are more prosperous, have higher levels of education, and/or are employed for longer periods. In this study, the score was used as an explanatory variable to examine differences between participants in the use of healthcare facilities such as the OLVG pain app. Data were analyzed using SPSS statistics (version 22.0 (IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Normally distributed data are shown as means and standard deviations (SD). Non-normally distributed data are shown as medians with range. Inter-group differences were tested using appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data (RECORD) guidelines were followed to present the results in this paper [10,11].

Ethics

Ethical approval for this study (WO 20.239) was provided by the medical ethics committee (ACWO) and institutional board of directors of OLVG hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Chair of the boards Prof. dr. M.A.A.J. van den Bosch) on 14 January 2021. Furthermore, the study was conducted according to the principles of Good Clinical Practice and in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki [12,13].

Results

A total number of 4952 patients were included in the study. A total of 592 (12%) patients downloaded the application, of which 351 (7%) were unique active users, Patient flowchart (Fig 4). A total of 4360 (88%) patients refrained from downloading the application. Patient characteristics are presented in, Baseline characteristics of eligible patients admitted to day care (Table 1). A little more than half of patients were female 56% (2769), and the median age was 46 (18–92). Most patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA) of 1, 45% (2217) and 2, 42% (2069). The mean socio-economic-status (SES) score was -0.05434 (SD = 0.22).

Fig 4. Patient flowchart.

Fig 4

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of eligible patients admitted to day care.

Total cohort Active Not active Not downloaded P*
Cases, n (%) 4952 351 (7%) 241 (5%) 4360 (88%)
Age, median (range) 46 (18–92) 44 (19–85) 44 (18–82) 46 (18–92) .129
Sex female, n (%) 2769 (56%) 222 (63%) 164 (68%) 2383 (55%) .000
ASA 1, n (%) 2217 (45%) 163 (47%) 111 (46%) 1943 (45%) .318l§
ASA 2, n (%) 2069 (42%) 145 (41%) 100 (42%) 1824 (42%)
ASA 3, n (%) 634 (13%) 42 (12%) 27 (11%) 565 (13%)
ASA 4, n (%) 9 (<1%) 0 0 9 (<1%)
SES, mean (SD) -.05434 (.22) -.01356 (.21) -.05534 (,23) -.05755 (.22) .001
Surgical risk classification, n (%) .001
Minor 3950 (80%) 254 (73%) 184 (76%) 3513 (81%)
Intermediate 1000 (20%) 96 (27%) 57 (24%) 847 (19%)

*p-value of < 0.05 is considered statistically significant,

Kruskal Wallis,

Chi squared,

§Chi squared for trend,

ANOVA. ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologist, SES = social economic status, n = number

General and injury-related surgeries represented 51% (2541) of the patients, and 80% (3950) of the surgical interventions were classified as minor surgical risks. There were statistically significant differences in sex, socioeconomic status, and surgical risk between the active user, non-active user, and non-downloader groups.

Primary outcome

Postoperative pain (are you in pain = yes) was experienced by 174 (76%) of 229 active users on POD 1, Overview of pain and nausea reporting of patients actively using the app (Table 2). This decreased to 44 (44%) of the 100 active users on POD7, Incidence of postoperative pain (Fig 5). Similarly, postoperative nausea and vomiting (nauseous = yes) was experienced by 63 (28%) of 229 active users on POD1. This decreased to 12 (12%) of 100 active users on POD7, Incidence of postoperative nausea (Fig 6).

Table 2. Overview of pain and nausea reporting of patients actively using the app.

Total number of patients actively using the app = 351 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
Patients actively using the app 229 (65%) 182 (52%) 160 (46%) 135 (38%) 131 (37%) 108 (31%) 100 (28%)
Median times used (range) 2 (1 to 4) 2 (1 to 8) 2 (1 to 5) 2 (1 to 5) 2 (1 to 4) 2 (1 to 7) 2 (1 to 5)
Are you in pain?, n (%) 174 (76%) 112 (62%) 105 (65%) 79 (56%) 70 (53%) 56 (52%) 44 (44%)
Indicate how much pain (highest pain score)
NRS 1 to 3, n (%) 34 (19%) 24 (21%) 38 (36%) 31 (39%) 29 (41%) 16 (29%) 13 (29%)
NRS 4 to 7, n (%) 115 (66%) 79 (71%) 65 (62%) 47 (59%) 40 57%) 38 (68%) 30 (68%)
NRS 8 to 10, n (%) 25 (14%) 9 (8%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%)
Not bearable?, n (%) 30 (9%) 14 (4%) 5 (5%) 5 (6%) 1 (1%) 3 (3%) 5 (11%)
Request to relief the pain, n (%) 27 (8%) 12 (3%) 4 (4%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 2 (4%) 4 (9%)
Are you nauseous? n, (%) 63 (28%) 48 (26%) 31 (19%) 21 (16%) 20 (15%) 18 (17%) 12 (12%)
Request to relief nausea, n (%) 6 (10%) 4 (8%) 2 (6%) 0 1 (5%) 2 (11%) 0

The total number of unique users is 351; the composition of daily users varies because some patients are not active with the application on a daily basis. For the variables; Are you in pain?; Not bearable?; Request to relief the pain; Are you nauseous?; and Request to relief nausea: n (%) represents the number and percentage of patients answering the question with an affirmative response. NRS = Numerical Rating Scale, n = number

Fig 5. Incidence of postoperative pain.

Fig 5

Fig 6. Incidence of postoperative nausea.

Fig 6

Secondary outcome

In total, 351 unique patients were active users during the 7 days postoperative follow period, with an overall median times used of 2 (range, 1–8). An overview of the surgical specialism and 15 most performed surgeries in our cohort is provided in S1 Table: Overview surgical specialism and most proceeded interventions. The highest pain intensity scores of the active users were reported on POD 1 and POD 2: 25 (14%) patients and 9 (8%) patients with a numerical rating scale (NRS) score of 8 to 10. The number of patients who rated their pain as not bearable and requested for relief, decreased over the first 5 postoperative days, with 27 to 1 active users, respectively, (Fig 6). On POD 6 and 7, the number of patients with not bearable pain and a request for relief slightly increased to 5 and 4 patients, respectively. The values regarding the request for relief decreased from 6 (10%) patients on POD1 to 0 patients on POD7. It is important to emphasize that these outcomes solely represent the patient’s responses to the in-app questions and do not confirm whether they actually received any additional attention or care.

Overall experienced pain, nausea, satisfaction with the application and received assistance

The in-app closeout questions on POD 7 were completed by 60 (17%) active users, valuing experienced pain, nausea, the remote monitoring tool, and received assistance. Regarding experienced pain, on a 5 point Likert scale, 55 (92%) patients reported no pain at all, mild pain, or bearable pain. Reflecting on the initial 7 days post-surgery, none of the patients who completed the in-app closeout questions indicated the presence of severe pain. Regarding nausea 54 (90%) patients reported no, little, or bearable nausea. One of the patients experienced severe nausea. Most patients were satisfied with the app 57 (95%) and reported that it was okay, pleasant, or very pleasant to record their pain and nausea with it, only a minority of 3 (5%) patients reported that it was not pleasant or unpleasant. The received assistance was rated as very pleasant, pleasant, or Ok by 56 (93%) patients, while 4 (7%) patients rated it as not pleasant or very unpleasant.

Discussion

In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated remote monitoring of pain and PONV after daycare surgery using a dedicated smartphone application (the OLVG Pain app). This evaluation was performed one year after the implementation of the app in daily practice. Our main finding was that only 12% of eligible patients downloaded the application, and that no more than 7% of all patients actually used the application to report pain and nausea. Among the active users, most pain and nausea were reported in the first two days after discharge.

Our finding that the proportion of patients recording pain was highest on POD 1 and 2, with up to 14% of recordings indicating severe pain, is in line with the available literature. However, previous studies showed an overall higher prevalence of moderate-to-severe pain of 30% on POD1 [14,15] and up to 43% on POD 7 [16]. This difference may be due to the chosen threshold for moderate to severe pain and the patient study population.

Regarding PONV, we found a relatively high proportion of patients who experienced nausea; however, only a small percentage requested relief. Few studies have evaluated PONV after daycare surgery, demonstrating similar incidences, varying from 28% to 57% [1720]. The heterogeneity of the methodologies and our low response rate make it difficult to compare the results. Only one study reported PONV rates up to POD7, a prospective observational cohort study that included 239 patients and found that 6% of the patients experienced nausea on POD7 [18].

Despite the promising results of our previous proof-of-concept study [5], the uptake and use of the application was surprisingly low. This is contrast with the results of the SATELIA application [21] which is the most comparable app with direct electronic record integration, and pain and side effect monitoring. Notably, it achieved a high rate of active users on POD1, potentially due to proactive nurse follow-up. We recognize this from our own results that active motivation of patients by one of the researchers present in the day care ward during the last 3 months of the follow-up period has resulted in 285 out of 351 patients actively engaging with the application.

We anticipated that more patients would have used the application after discharge. We had identified and addressed important implementation themes from a meta viewpoint namely; size of the hospital, top management support, organizational readiness, centralization in decision-making and absorptive capacity [22,23]. We found that the most important factor influencing the adoption of the OLVG pain app was absorptive capacity, primarily determined by the innovation’s urgency, relevance, and a sense of ownership and responsibility. We addressed this by; enhancing the innovation’s relevance, involving stakeholders from the outset, and assigning ambassadors and managers to support stakeholder engagement and to provide proper guidance and training [24].

Possibly we are still facing, with regards to Rogers’s diffusion of innovation theory (DOI), that patients who are actively using the application are the ‘innovators’ and ‘early adopters’ and that we still have not passed the point of critical mass for innovation adoption amongst our patients [25].

One potential challenge that may have been overlooked is the digital divide, which is linked to pre-existing social inequalities as a contributing factor to non-adherence to e-health [26]. This accounts for OLVG Hospital patients, as these locations are situated in low socio-economic neighborhoods of Amsterdam [27]. The mean socioeconomic score (SES) of the patients in our study was below 0, indicating that they were less prosperous, had lower levels of education, and were employed for shorter periods than the average resident in the Netherlands. Therefore, it is plausible that many of our patients lacked access to or were unable to use the remote-monitoring app.

This is supported by the results of a recent study conducted in Amsterdam among mothers from low-SES backgrounds, which shows that poverty and the complexity of information and communication technology, influence perspectives, experiences, and ICT-related needs [28].

This present study has some limitations, including those inherent to observational cohort studies that could affect our data and outcomes [29]. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic was still ongoing during the study period, which is likely to have impacted our study results. Measures such as social distancing and the deployment of surgical and anesthesia staff in covid care have resulted in cancellations or postponement of daycare surgeries. In relation to this, the presence of a researcher on the day care ward, who could offer additional guidance to the patients about the application and provide instructions on its usage, was only allowed during the last 3 months of the study’s observation period. This resulted in fewer patients in the study cohort. Those who were admitted underwent more urgent surgical procedures, which explains the high percentage of trauma patients in our data.

In brief, to compare of the OLVG pain app with other recently published results of applications designed for post-operative follow-up [21,3032]. The Mserv application [30] is an Android-exclusive app for thoracic and urogenital procedures, active within hospital setting. In contrast, the OLVG pain app that is accessible to outpatients and clinically admitted patients and is compatible with both iOS and Android operating systems. RecoverWell application [31], which was studied in a breast cancer surgery trial, offers advantages such as photo follow-up and drain monitoring but lacks the crucial feature of integration with electronic medical records, a feature that the OLVG pain app has. The Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia app [32] uses ’twitch crowdsourcing’ for real-time data collection but does not provide patient follow-up. In addition to these, there are other recent applications that focus more on rehabilitation and revalidation for specific surgical procedures, featuring built-in patient instructions and reminders rather than primarily focusing on the management of postoperative pain and nausea [3335].

One of the advantages of our application is that the outcomes of pain and nausea were self-recorded by the patient at home without interference from a healthcare professional. It is known that both the patient and healthcare professionals alter the pain and nausea recording for their benefit or adjust them to subjective perceptions during interactive assessments [36,37]. Therefore, we still believe that self-recording is likely to provide less biased and more realistic outcome data. However, the low number of active users and irregular recording may limit the interpretation of the results. Future research should focus on the uptake of mobile health and remote monitoring, and whether it benefits the quality of recovery.

Conclusion

Most patients active with the application experienced pain and nausea on the first and second days after discharge, but only a small minority of eligible patients used the application. Those who used it were satisfied with the possibilities offered to them. Future research should focus on increasing the uptake and effect of this application on the quality of recovery.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Overview surgical specialism and most proceeded interventions.

(DOCX)

pdig.0000342.s001.docx (20.8KB, docx)
S1 STROBE Checklist. STROBE Statement: Monitoring of Self-Recorded Pain and Nausea via Smartphone Following Day Care Surgery, First Year Results: An Observational Cohort Study.

(DOC)

pdig.0000342.s002.doc (90.5KB, doc)

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of the Netherlands general data protection regulation (GDPR). The data will be stored for 15 years on a secured server at OLVG Hospital. For interested researchers it is possible to access the data by submitting an application to the local research advisory committee of OLVG Hospital, referencing the study with number WO 20.239 at acwo@olvg.nl.

Funding Statement

The SIDN fund, a public benefit organization for Dutch Internet domain registration (URL: www.SIDNfonds.nl), partially funded the development of the smartphone application. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation.

References

  • 1.International Association of Ambulatory Surgery, IAAS Statement on the Covid Pandemic. 2021; https://iaas-med.com/index.php/iaas-initiatives.
  • 2.Jakobsson J, Recovery and discharge criteria after ambulatory anesthesia: can we improve them? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 2019. 32(6): p. 698–702. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stessel B, Hendrickx M, Pelckmans C, De Wachter G, Appeltans B, Braeken G, Herbots J,et al., One-month recovery profile and prevalence and predictors of quality of recovery after painful day case surgery: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 2021. 16(1): p. e0245774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.van der Meij E, Anema J, Otten R, Huirne J, Schaafsma F, The Effect of Perioperative E-Health Interventions on the Postoperative Course: A Systematic Review of Randomised and Non-Randomised Controlled Trials. PLoS One, 2016. 11(7): p. e0158612. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Thiel B, Godfried M, van Huizen E, Mooijer B, de Boer B, van Mierlo R, et al., Patient reported postoperative pain with a smartphone application: A proof of concept. PLoS One, 2020. 15(5): p. e0232082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Enam A, Torres-Bonilla J, Eriksson H, Evidence-Based Evaluation of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Literature Review. J Med Internet Res, 2018. 20(11): p. e10971. doi: 10.2196/10971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Federatie Medisch Specialisten, Perioperatief traject, 2020, https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/perioperatief_traject/startpagina_-_perioperatief_traject.html
  • 8.Nederlandse Vereniging Voor Anesthesiologie, Richtlijn Postoperatieve pijn, 2012. https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/postoperatieve_pijn/startpagina_-_postoperatieve_pijn.html.
  • 9.Myles P,Wengritzky R, Simplified postoperative nausea and vomiting impact scale for audit and post-discharge review. Br J Anaesth, 2012. 108(3): p. 423–9. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gøtzsche P, Vandenbroucke J, The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008. 61(4): p. 344–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Benchimol E,Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, et al., The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med, 2015. 12(10): p. e1001885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Henry K.A., GCP Definition and Principles, in The Fundamentals of Clinical Research. 2022. p. 47–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.World Medical Association, World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 2013. 310(20): p. 2191–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.McGrath B, Elgendy H, Chung F, Kamming D, Curti B, King S, Thirty percent of patients have moderate to severe pain 24 hr after ambulatory surgery: a survey of 5,703 patients. Can J Anaesth, 2004. 51(9): p. 886–91. doi: 10.1007/BF03018885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gramke H, de Rijke J, van Kleef M, Kessels A, Peters M, Sommer M,et al., Predictive factors of postoperative pain after day-case surgery. Clin J Pain, 2009. 25(6): p. 455–60. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31819a6e34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rosen H, Bergh I, Odén A, Mårtensson L, Patients experiences of pain following day surgery—at 48 hours, seven days and three months. Open Nurs J, 2011. 5: p. 52–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Apfel C, Philip B, Cakmakkaya O, Shilling A, Shi Y, Leslie B, et al., Who is at risk for postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery? Anesthesiology, 2012. 117(3): p. 475–86. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318267ef31 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Odom-Forren J, Jalota L, Moser D, Lennie T, Hall L, Holtman J, et al., Incidence and predictors of postdischarge nausea and vomiting in a 7-day population. J Clin Anesth, 2013. 25(7): p. 551–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2013.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bruderer U, Fisler A, Steurer M, Steurer M, Dullenkopf A, Post-discharge nausea and vomiting after total intravenous anaesthesia and standardised PONV prophylaxis for ambulatory surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2017. 61(7): p. 758–766. doi: 10.1111/aas.12921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wallden J, Flodin J, Hultin M, Validation of a prediction model for post-discharge nausea and vomiting after general anaesthesia in a cohort of Swedish ambulatory surgery patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol, 2016. 33(10): p. 743–9. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Carlier J, Robin F, Pages N, Quinart A, Roy M, Pauchard J, et al., Pain evaluation after day-surgery using a mobile phone application. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med, 2021. 40(3): p. 100879. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Faber S, van Geenhuizen M, de Reuver M, eHealth adoption factors in medical hospitals: A focus on the Netherlands. Int J Med Inform, 2017. 100: p. 77–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Greenhalgh T,Papoutsi C, Spreading and scaling up innovation and improvement. BMJ, 2019. 365: p. l2068. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l2068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Thiel B, Iao I, Smid J, de Wit E, Koopman S, Geerts B, et al., Adoption of a Postoperative Pain Self-Report Tool: Qualitative Study. JMIR Hum Factors, 2022. 9(2): p. e33706. doi: 10.2196/33706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dearing J, Cox J, Diffusion Of Innovations Theory, Principles, And Practice. Health Aff (Millwood), 2018. 37(2): p. 183–190. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Livingood W, Bautista M, Smotherman C, Azueta D, Coleman J, Grewal R, et al., Comparative study of different SES neighborhood clinics for health literacy and internet access. Digit Health, 2022. 8: p. 20552076221123715. doi: 10.1177/20552076221123715 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek, Sociaal-economische-status per postcode 2019; https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/maatwerk/2022/26/sociaal-economische-status-per-postcode-2019.
  • 28.Goedhart N,Broerse J, Kattouw R, Dedding C, ‘Just having a computer doesn’t make sense’: The digital divide from the perspective of mothers with a low socio-economic position. New Media & Society, 2019. 21(11–12): p. 2347–2365. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wang M, Bolland M, Grey A, Reporting of Limitations of Observational Research. JAMA Intern Med, 2015. 175(9): p. 1571–2. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gordon-Williams R, Trigo A, Bassett P, Williams A, Cone S, Lees M, Brandner B, An Interactive Pain Application (MServ) Improves Postoperative Pain Management. Pain Res Manag. 2021. Apr 2;2021:8898170. doi: 10.1155/2021/8898170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Temple-Oberle C, Yakaback S, Webb C, Assadzadeh GE, Nelson G, Effect of Smartphone App Postoperative Home Monitoring After Oncologic Surgery on Quality of Recovery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2023. Jul 1;158(7):693–699. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.0616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.van Hout L, Bokkerink W, Vriens P, Clinical feasibility of the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application: a prospective cohort study. Hernia, 2023. 27(2): p. 449–458. doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02646-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kasnakova P, Mihaylova A, Djurdjev B, Tornyova B, Randomized controlled trial of multidisciplinary rehabilitation therapy using mobile applications in cases of ankle fractures. Eur J Transl Myol. 2022. May 31;32(2):10471. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2022.10471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yang C, Kessler M, Taebi N, Hetjens M, Reissfelder C, Otto M, et al., Remote Follow-up with a Mobile Application Is Equal to Traditional Outpatient Follow-up After Bariatric Surgery: the BELLA Pilot Trial. Obes Surg. 2023. Jun;33(6):1702–1709. doi: 10.1007/s11695-023-06587-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yu C, Liu C, Du J, Liu H, Zhang H, Zhao Y, et al., Smartphone-based application to improve medication adherence in patients after surgical coronary revascularization, Am Heart J. 2020. Oct;228:17–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.06.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.van Dijk J, Kappen T, Schuurmans M, van Wijck A, The Relation Between Patients’ NRS Pain Scores and Their Desire for Additional Opioids after Surgery, Pain Pract. 2015. Sep;15(7):604–9. doi: 10.1111/papr.12217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.van Dijk J, Vervoort S, van Wijck A, Kalkman C, Schuurmans M, Postoperative patients’ perspectives on rating pain: A qualitative study, Int J Nurs Stud. 2016. Jan;53:260–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000342.r001

Decision Letter 0

Haleh Ayatollahi

8 Sep 2023

PDIG-D-23-00297

Patient self-reported pain and nausea via smartphone following daycare surgery, first year results: An observational cohort study

PLOS Digital Health

Dear Dr. Thiel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Digital Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Digital Health's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Nov 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at digitalhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pdig/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haleh Ayatollahi

Section Editor

PLOS Digital Health

Journal Requirements:

1. In the Funding Information you indicated that no funding was received. Please revise the Funding Information field to reflect funding received.

2. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

3. We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg ©, ®, ™ (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including ® on page 5.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: No

--------------------

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

--------------------

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

--------------------

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

--------------------

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript of Thiel et al describes a retrospective study of patients self-reported pain and nausea after daycare surgery using a smartphone application. Digital solutions have the potential to improve the interactions between medical professionals and their patients. The present study evaluated the adoption rate and post-operative complications (pain, nausea) of patients by self-reported ratings. Overall, the results are of great interest for the growing community of digital health professionals. The manuscript could be improved by clarifying the issues stated below.

Major issues

1) This is not the first app that was developed to monitor and/or report post-operative complications. Please include a paragraph where you compare your app to other common alternatives.

1a) State the advantages (e.g. language, data integration, unique features) and disadvantages of your software when compared to the existing alternatives.

1b) The frequency of patients that were in pain or feeling nauseous and nothing was done is quite high in this study (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). In the beginning it is stated that the use of an smartphone application could be advantageous for improving patient care.

2) Please discuss possible reasons for this observation. Are changes to the implementation necessary and if so which ones would be most beneficial for the patient?

Consider including an analysis of patient satisfaction in the subgroups where something was done and nothing was done.

Minor issues

line 98: Smartphone requirements, ability to understand the Dutch language and cognitive impairment (e.g. dementia) are likely to lead to lower adoption to the proposed digital application. However, those patients were not excluded in the present study. The limitations should state that these factors were not assessed and could lead to a reduction in the adoption rate.

line 102: Was there a specific reason that the researcher was only present for the last 3 months of the observation period? And did the presence of the researcher lead to time-dependent differences of active users during this period?

Table 1: The subtitle of the table should be re-written. I would recommend that you use superscript symbols (e.g.†,¶,…) behind p-values in the table. In the the annotation of the table you can write the corresponding test for each symbol. The current style is confusing for the reader.

Furthermore, in the methods section it is written that median and IQR are used for non-normal distributed variables. In the table median and range is used. Please decide what strategy you want to use.

In the SES row the commata should probably be substitutes with dots

line 223: Consider changing the statement „None of the patients experienced any severe pain.“ to „Retrospectively, none of the patients reported that they experienced any severe pain.“. In line 213 it is mentioned that 14% reported NRS scores above 7, so either all those patients dropped out or more likely they did not remember their pain as vividly.

line 233: The 11% is in contrast to the 12% mentioned earlier.

Reviewer #2: The conclusion of the study presented in this retrospective cohort investigation reflects a comprehensive evaluation of remote monitoring through a specialized smartphone application (the OLVG Pain app) in the context of pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management after outpatient surgery. The analysis took place one year following the app's integration into routine clinical practice. The primary findings unveiled a rather modest adoption rate, as only 11% of eligible patients actually downloaded the app, and merely 7% of the total patient pool engaged with it for pain and nausea reporting. Among active users, most symptom reports occurred within the initial two days post-discharge.

The study's identification of the highest proportion of pain reports on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 2, with up to 14% indicating severe pain, aligns with existing literature. Notably, the prevalence of moderate-to-severe pain reported in this study, at 14% on POD 1, differs from earlier research showing higher rates, potentially due to variances in pain assessment thresholds and the patient demographics under examination.

Regarding PONV, the research identifies a relatively elevated occurrence of nausea among patients, yet a small percentage sought relief. Comparable studies in the realm of PONV after ambulatory surgery have demonstrated similar incidences, though methodological disparities and the study's relatively low response rate hinder direct comparison. The sole study assessing PONV up to POD 7 exhibited a 6% nausea occurrence rate on that day, signifying the need for more comprehensive investigations.

Despite the encouraging outcomes of a prior proof-of-concept study, the actual implementation and utilization of the application proved surprisingly subdued. Anticipations of greater post-discharge usage were not met, prompting consideration of Rogers's diffusion of innovation theory, which suggests that current users are early adopters and innovators, and broader adoption is yet to be achieved. A potentially underestimated factor, the digital divide, comes to the forefront as a potential constraint, particularly given the socioeconomic background of OLVG Hospital patients, primarily residing in economically disadvantaged Amsterdam neighborhoods. This raises concerns about equitable access and capability to utilize e-health solutions, particularly among the less privileged.

The research acknowledges its limitations, inherent to observational cohort studies, and highlights the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on study outcomes, given its influence on surgical scheduling and patient demographics. The advantages of self-reported outcomes, untainted by healthcare professional influence, are noted. However, the limited user engagement and sporadic symptom reporting impose constraints on result interpretation. Future inquiries should delve into the acceptance and effectiveness of mobile health applications for remote monitoring in the context of recovery.

In conclusion, the study offers valuable insights into the implementation and outcomes of remote monitoring via a specialized smartphone application for pain and PONV management post-outpatient surgery. The investigation underscores the challenges of adoption and the potential influence of socioeconomic factors, in addition to recognizing the impact of ongoing global events. These findings emphasize the significance of continued research to elucidate the broader implications and benefits of mobile health solutions in optimizing patient care.

Reviewer #3: The paper aims to show the results of a one year study of post-operative patients using a pain reporting app.

1) I cannot access the supplemental files --

2) As a matter of style, please start sentences with letters and avoid starting with numbers (eg, "56% of patients...")

3) Line 263: there is mention of first generation and non-Western types of patients but there is no direct study data to support this - these were linked to the SES demographic data (summarized) rather than to the specific individual data. Suggest to remove these observations.

4) Were patient feedback on the usability of the app obtained? If yes, that will be an important statement. If patient feedback were not, then that could be stated briefly as well.

5) Line 129: mismatch between "a patient" and "they" -- pls match the plurality

6) Patients were given medication (minor) to take home. Did the app document if the patient took them regularly? Or just that a patient intervention (generic) was done?

7) Of the patients who were on oxycodone, were these directly observed by a health professional prior to discharge or were these self-administered? Pls mention as this could have an impact on the pain scores.

The paper can contribute significantly on the knowledge about mobile app uptake of patients. Suggest referencing either the UTAUT and Delone-Mclean frameworks to identify which aspects of technology adoption were covered by the study and which were not.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript entitled “Patient self-reported pain and nausea via smartphone following daycare surgery, first year results: An observational cohort study”.

There has certainly been a shift towards elective daycase surgery which provides an attractive cohort of patients that would potentially benefit from digital health interventions.

Unfortunately, however I do not believe the article provides sufficient methodological or clinical benefit that I would be able to recommend it for publication in PLOS Digital Health, even in the case of substantial revision. Further justification for this decision is outlined below:

� The included primary outcome was the incidence of patients with self-reported pain and nausea in the early post-operative period – however this doesn’t really provide much information about the clinical utility of the app, i.e. ultimately we want to how the app influences treatment compared to standard practice. This information is present in very small numbers in terms of those that have pain/nausea and have had something done, but there is no way to compare with traditional pathways, and the numbers included are insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions.

� There was limited information included as to the types of clinical cases performed, which would likely have a significant impact on the perceived rates of pain and nausea. For example, general surgical patients would likely have significant differences in the subsequent levels of nausea compared to orthopaedic patients. Heterogeneity of this population makes it very difficult to draw any useful information regarding rates for more specific sub-populations where clinical teams are likely to be working.

� There was a quite dramatic lack of uptake for the number of patients included in the study. This again limits the potential generalisability of study findings given such a small sub-sample responded, and that there is likely to be significant bias within this population of responders. It would likely be far more useful to an audience to try in much greater depth to identify why the uptake was so poor. This would likely provide greater reach of utility, for example providing potential key information to those current going through the process of app development or similar attempts at clinical practice integration.

--------------------

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If pu

PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000342.r003

Decision Letter 1

Haleh Ayatollahi

13 Dec 2023

PDIG-D-23-00297R1

Patient self-reported pain and nausea via smartphone following day care surgery, first year results: An observational cohort study

PLOS Digital Health

Dear Dr. Thiel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Digital Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Digital Health's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Jan 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at digitalhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pdig/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haleh Ayatollahi

Section Editor

PLOS Digital Health

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I appreciate the authors for thier time and efforts to revise the manuscript. Please address the following comments in your next revision, too.

1- Please add appropriate keywords after the abstract.

2- In the introduction section, please review other similar applications that have been developed so far.

3- Some figures of the application should be added to the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

--------------------

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: I don't know

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

--------------------

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

--------------------

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: -----

--------------------

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #5: No

--------------------

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000342.r005

Decision Letter 2

Haleh Ayatollahi

1 Feb 2024

PDIG-D-23-00297R2

Patient self-reported pain and nausea via smartphone following day care surgery, first year results: An observational cohort study

PLOS Digital Health

Dear Dr. Thiel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Digital Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Digital Health's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Mar 02 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at digitalhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pdig/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haleh Ayatollahi

Section Editor

PLOS Digital Health

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #6: Yes

--------------------

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #6: Yes

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #6: No

--------------------

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #6: Yes

--------------------

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #6: This paper provides a description of a smartphone app allowing day surgery patients to self-report post-operative pain and nausea, and receive health professional intervention for distressing levels of symptoms. The authors found a relatively low uptake (7% of the study population became active users of the app), but among those found that pain and nausea were most common on post-op days 1 and 2, and fell off quickly afterwards. This is an important contribution to the growing field of smartphone apps for healthcare interaction. The utility of the app is demonstrated, and the paper lays groundwork for future studies regarding the role of patient preferences in leveraging digital tools for streamlined access to the healthcare system, and likely provides a baseline for future interventional studies aimed at modifying pain and nausea symptoms after discharge.

I have several additional comments:

1. Raw data is not shared, citing GDPR. Although there are many institutional and legal barriers to sharing healthcare data, data sharing is critical to promote reproducible research. Could the authors share a de-identified repository of their raw data?

2. The authors suggest low socioeconomic status contributed to low uptake of the smartphone app. This is certainly possible. However, in the current digital climate many consumers have concerns about data privacy and the value-added of downloading additional apps to their phone. Do the authors feel that these “savvy consumer” concerns may have impacted uptake as well? What was the data privacy policy associated with the app (e.g., was the data transmitted or maintained via any commercial 3rd party?), and were prospective patients counseled on this? Should consideration be given to alternate digital formats, e.g. a standard website vs an app, or text message communication to collect the same data?

3. Please explain what is meant by “the patient council” in line 135

4. Line 166-167 – should this say “with the help of a software specialist”?

5. Line 195 – suggest “injury-related” rather than “traumatic” surgeries

6. Table 2 – for the bottom four rows, please clarify (in caption or table) if values represent the number of people who answered the question at all on a particular day, or the number with an affirmative response.

7. Line 218 – is the median times used overall or per day?

8. There are several areas of the paper that require copy editing for standard English, in particular lines 69 and 70 (suggest present tense verbs), 96 (ordering of month/date is different for American and European audiences, suggest just writing out the month and date), 157 (primary outcome was the incidence), 160-164 (these are list items and are not full sentences, suggest separate with semicolon), 222 (“not bearable and requested relief”), 223 (non-bearable vs no bearable?), 230 (clarify), 233 (extra “.”), 264 (“would use” the app), 280 (“average resident”)

--------------------

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #6: No

--------------------

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000342.r007

Decision Letter 3

Haleh Ayatollahi

22 May 2024

Patient self-reported pain and nausea via smartphone following day care surgery, first year results: An observational cohort study

PDIG-D-23-00297R3

Dear Thiel,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Patient self-reported pain and nausea via smartphone following day care surgery, first year results: An observational cohort study' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Digital Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact digitalhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Digital Health.

Best regards,

Haleh Ayatollahi

Section Editor

PLOS Digital Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #6: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #6: Thank you to the authors for their clarifications and additions to the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #6: No

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Overview surgical specialism and most proceeded interventions.

    (DOCX)

    pdig.0000342.s001.docx (20.8KB, docx)
    S1 STROBE Checklist. STROBE Statement: Monitoring of Self-Recorded Pain and Nausea via Smartphone Following Day Care Surgery, First Year Results: An Observational Cohort Study.

    (DOC)

    pdig.0000342.s002.doc (90.5KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers.docx

    pdig.0000342.s003.docx (96.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the ReviewersII.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers III.docx

    pdig.0000342.s005.docx (24KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of the Netherlands general data protection regulation (GDPR). The data will be stored for 15 years on a secured server at OLVG Hospital. For interested researchers it is possible to access the data by submitting an application to the local research advisory committee of OLVG Hospital, referencing the study with number WO 20.239 at acwo@olvg.nl.


    Articles from PLOS Digital Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES