Mobile App-Supported Self-Management for Chronic Low Back Pain: Realist Evaluation
Rebecca Hunter1,2, Trish Gorely1, Michelle Beattie1
1Centre for Rural Health Sciences, University of the Highlands and Islands, Raigmore Hospital, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH, United Kingdom, 44 01463 279805.
Background:
As the world's population ages, the prevalence of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is increasing, placing a substantial burden on individuals and health care systems. Mobile health (mHealth) apps offer a potentially scalable solution to support self-management, but little is known about how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances such tools work in real-world settings.
Objectives:
This study aimed to test and refine 3 program theories-developed through a previous realist review-on how mobile apps support CLBP self-management. The goal was to understand the key contextual factors and mechanisms that influence when and why a digital self-management intervention may succeed or fail.
Methods:
A realist evaluation was conducted using one-on-one telephone interviews with 9 participants who had used the Curable app for 3 months to self-manage their CLBP. Realist interviews followed a teacher-learner cycle to explore, test, and refine the program theories. Abductive and retroductive analysis was used to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs), which were synthesized into refined theories of digital self-management in chronic pain.
Results:
A total of 20 CMOCs were constructed, supporting 3 overarching program theories centered on empowerment, self-management burden, and timing. First, the app was empowering when it offered credible and accessible knowledge that helped participants understand their pain, build confidence, and reduce reliance on health care providers. However, engagement depended on individual beliefs and expectations: those with strong biomedical views struggled to connect with the app's psychosocial framing. Second, while the app could ease the burden of self-management by offering support between appointments, it could also increase burden during flare-ups, when users lacked the capacity to engage. Features such as proactive content delivery and low-demand interfaces were viewed as essential for continued use. Third, timing emerged as a key factor. Early introduction was beneficial for some, but others needed to first accept the chronicity of their condition before they were ready to engage with self-management tools. Trust in the source recommending the app also influenced engagement. While clinician endorsement was often valued-especially early in the self-management journey-participants who had experienced unmet needs or disillusionment in clinical encounters reported that peer recommendations or nonclinical sources held greater weight. This highlights the importance of aligning recommendations with individuals' evolving relationships with authority and trust.
Conclusions:
Mobile apps like Curable (Curable Inc) can support empowerment and continuity of care in CLBP, but their success depends on personalization, timing, and relational dynamics. To prevent feelings of abandonment, such tools should be introduced as an adjunct to-rather than a replacement for-ongoing clinical support.
