N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain Aka PREEMPT (Personalized Research for Monitoring Pain Treatment)
Phase: NA
Conditions: Musculoskeletal Pain, Chronic Pain
Sponsor: University of California, Davis

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 1 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
 
1) 
Protocol Title 
 
N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain aka PREEMPT (Personalized Research for 
Monitoring Pain Treatment) 
• Phase I, Activity 3 – Pilot Trial 
• Phase II – Randomized Clinical Trial 
 
2) 
PREEMPT (Personalized Research for Monitoring Pain Treatment) 
 
Author of Protocol 
 
     X  UC Davis Researcher 
 Researcher from other institution 
 Private Sponsor 
 Cooperative Group 
 Other: _________________ 
 
 
3) 
IRB Review History 
 
N/A 
 
4) 
Objectives 
 
NOTE:  The Grant outlines the study to be conducted in the following manner: 
• Phase I Activity 1 – Focus Group (IRB Exemption #386259-2) 
• Phase I Activity 2 – Mock N-of-1Trial (IRB ID: 446562-1, approved 6/11/2013) 
• Phase I Activity 3 – Pilot Trial (Submitted herein for IRB review) 
• Phase II – Randomized Clinical Trial (Submitted herein for IRB review) 
 
The procedures for the pilot trial and the randomized clinical trial (RCT) are identical with the 
following exceptions: the pilot trial does not have a follow-up period; and a smaller incentive 
will be distributed to pilot participants since the trial length is shorter compared to RCT 
participants. Throughout the protocol, differences between the pilot trial and RCT are explained. 
The terms participants and patients are used interchangeably.  
 
Importance of knowledge to be gained: 
Our mobile web application (the Trialist) will allow patients and clinicians to jointly set up a 
personalized n-of-1 trial; will use state-of-the-art user interaction design to help patients collect, 
view, and understand their data; and will return n-of-1 trial results to the clinician and patient for 
joint decision making. 
The Trialist App will support primary care and specialty clinicians at the point of service by 
highlighting alternative pain treatment options, including alternative opioids. Phase I, activity 3 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 2 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
of the study is concerned with the testing the Trialist App with a small number of patients. In 
Phase II of the study, a RCT will be conducted to examine the research questions stated below. 
This IRB application is concerned with activity 3 of Phase I and Phase II.  
The aim of the pilot trial is to assess the effects of participating in a mobile n-of-1 trial on 
participatory decision making between clinicians and patients, patient’s treatment satisfaction, 
and adherence. Achieving this aim will set the stage for the RCT. The pilot will provide 
valuable information about the Trialist functionality, patient satisfaction, and patient willingness 
to complete the intervention (adhere to intervention treatments and daily intervention tasks). The 
pilot trial will not have a comparison group.   
The aim of the RCT is to assess the effects of participating in a mobile n-of-1 trial (versus usual 
care) on clinical outcomes, participatory decision making, satisfaction, and adherence. Achieving 
this aim will set the stage for broader uptake of mHealth n-of-1 trials in chronic pain 
management as well as other chronic health conditions. Mobile n-of-1 trials applications will 
expand patient involvement in care and promote more personalized, patient-centered health 
care [1] (Appendix B).  
From the population perspective, if mHealth based n-of-1 trials  can help patients and 
clinicians achieve therapeutic success faster and with greater confidence, patients may require 
fewer subsequent office visits, tests, emergency room visits, and after-hours phone support, 
thus lessening the burden on health systems and restraining costs. 
Hypotheses (RCT) 
Hyp 1: Compared to usual care, patients randomized to the Trialist App will experience less 
pain interference at 6 months follow-up (primary outcome). 
Hyp 2: Compared to usual care, patients randomized to the intervention arm (Trialist App) 
will experience less pain intensity, improved health-related quality of life, improved 
participatory decision making, greater treatment satisfaction, and more adherence to 
prescribed therapy at 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up (secondary outcomes). 
 
5) 
Background 
Chronic musculoskeletal pain (MSP) is an enormous problem; affecting more than 100 million 
Americans and costing upwards of $160 billion [2-6]. Current pharmaco-therapeutic strategies 
convey a mix of benefits and hazards. In usual practice, clinicians often begin with 
acetaminophen or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), prescribing opioids when 
pain is severe or unresponsive [7]. When the analgesic response to the initial treatment is 
inadequate, clinicians can invoke step care, dose titration, opioid rotation, or augmentation with 
adjuvants such as anti-convulsants [7-9]. These approaches are usually employed in a trial-and-
error fashion. Trial and error can work but may lead to poor therapeutic decisions in the long run. 
A treatment that appears effective over a short period may only seem so because of random 
fluctuation in the patient’s underlying condition, uncontrollable external factors, or the placebo 
effect. N-of-1 trials are randomized controlled crossover trials conducted in a single patient. By 
crossing a patient back and forth between two treatments several times, clinicians can identify 
the more effective approach for that individual patient with greater precision than can be 
achieved in ordinary practice. 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 3 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
N-of-1 trials are especially useful when available therapies manifest substantial heterogeneity of 
treatment effects (HTE), implying significant variation across patients as to which treatment 
works best [10]. Many pain therapies display such HTE [11]. When HTE is large, average effects 
may mislead, calling for a more personalized approach that emphasizes individualized treatment 
effects [12]. N-of-1 trials are the most direct way to personalize therapeutic decisions, taking into 
account systematically the patient’s own clinical responses to the therapies under consideration. 
And while the primary purpose is to inform personalized decision making, the results of n-of-1 
trials can also be aggregated using Bayesian methods to inform care of populations beyond the n-
of-1 trial participants themselves [13]. N-of-1 trials are an intuitively appealing and 
demonstrably successful way to compare the effectiveness and toxicity of one analgesic regimen 
with another, thus reducing patient and clinician uncertainty about “which treatment is best for 
me?” [14-16]. However, n-of-1 trials have not yet gained traction with clinicians, patients, and 
the scientific community. As described in the PI’s prior work, a major barrier is the perception 
that such trials demand too much time and effort [1, 17, 18]. By making n-of-1 trials easier to 
accomplish, mobile health initiatives can address this perception and transform care (See 
Appendix B). Our goal is to provide patients and clinicians with tools for individualizing 
treatments for chronic MSP, and to evaluate this approach in terms of patient outcomes.  
 
6) 
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria 
 
Patient criteria  
Patients will be eligible to participate in the pilot or RCT if they are receiving clinical care at a 
participating site and have chronic musculoskeletal pain.  
Inclusion criteria:  
1. Chronic musculoskeletal pain (e.g., neck, back, extremities) operationalized as pain 
present for >=6 weeks and a pain score of >= 4 (on a 0-to-10 scale) on at least one-of-
three items from the PEG pain scale [19] 
2. Age 18-75 years 
3. Own web-enabled Android or iOS phone with data plan  
4. In judgment of treating clinician, pain potentially amenable to treatment with 
    acetaminophen, NSAIDs, low-dose opioids, a complementary/alternative treatment   
    such as massage or meditation, or a simple combination of these treatments 
5. Ability to speak and read English  
 
Exclusion criteria: 
1. Treated with surgery, radiation or chemotherapy for cancer in past 5 years 
2. Other medical conditions that in clinician’s judgment would limit life expectancy  
    to < 2 years or imperil patient safety 
3. Pregnant or breastfeeding 
4. Dementia, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, active suicidality 
5. Current alcohol or prescription drug abuse; history of disruptive behavior 
6. Failed 5 or more analgesic medications because of lack of effectiveness or poor 
    tolerability 
7. Participated in the pilot trial (RCT only) 
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 4 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
Because opioids will be offered as a menu option for clinicians to select, women will not be 
invited to participate if they are pregnant or breastfeeding (lactating). Subjects with a recent 
history of alcohol or prescription drug abuse will be excluded to prevent problems with 
inadvertent overdose from opioids. Patients with mental illness have a higher than normal 
incidence of opioid overdose. It is our intent to minimize their participation because this 
population is vulnerable in terms of morbidity and mortality from opioids. 
The following populations will not be enrolled in the study 
• Adults unable to consent 
• Non-English speakers 
• Individuals who are not yet adults (infants, children, teenagers) 
• Pregnant women 
• Prisoners 
 
Screening for Study Eligibility 
Patients that are interested in participating in the study will initiate contact with the research 
team by telephone or email. Recruitment methods (below) detail the process for outreaching to 
potential study participants. Screening for study eligibility is a three step process.  
1. At time of initial contact, patients will be screened for eligibility over the telephone or 
through completing an online questionnaire. At this initial contact, research staff will 
explain the study, ask the first set of screening questions (pp. 2-3 of Patient Eligibility 
Form, p. A025 of Appendix), and obtain verbal permission to contact patient’s clinician. If 
the patient does not provide permission, the patient will be deemed ineligible for inclusion 
in the study. 
2. In the second step of screening the patient’s clinician will be contacted via secure email 
and/or a telephone call to verify patient is appropriate candidate for the study (page 4 of 
Patient Eligibility Form, p. A025 of Appendix). 
3. Eligible patients will then be contacted by telephone and notified of eligibility; asked 
date/time of next clinic appointment to schedule an Enrollment Interview (see Section8- 
Patient Recruitment); and go over informed consent documents (see RA Screening Script, 
Patient Eligibility Form, pp. A017-A028 of Appendix).  
 
7) 
Study-Wide Number of Subjects 
Pilot trial: PI and Co-Investigators with clinical practices as well as close associates will identify 
2-4 patients for enrollment. A total of 8 patients will be enrolled for the pilot study, and all will 
complete the Trialist App intervention.  
RCT: Clinicians and participants will be enrolled from four primary sites, the UC Davis Family 
Medicine, UC Davis Internal Medicine, UC Davis Primary Care Network (UCD PCN), and the 
VA Northern California Health Care System (VANCHCS). Eligible clinicians will also include 
residents at the PG2 level or higher. We anticipate enrolling 50-60 clinicians across these sites in 
order to meet patient recruitment goal of 244 patients, with 122 randomized to intervention arm 
(Trialist App) and 122 to control group (Usual Care). Each enrolled clinician will have no more 
than 12 patients participating in the study. Enrollment in the study is defined as (1) completion of 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 5 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
the baseline questionnaire, (2) randomization to the intervention (Trialist App) or control arm, 
and (3) completion of one or more study-related visits. Allowing for 10% attrition, we will 
recruit 286 patients into the study with the expectation that 244 will complete all three 
enrollment procedures. For recruitment and participation through VANCHCS, separate IRB 
approval will be obtained.  
EMR data will be obtained on enrolled patients within UC Davis Family Medicine, UC Davis 
Internal Medicine, the UC Davis Primary Care Network (UCD PCN), and VANCHCS. Separate 
IRB approval will be obtained from VANCHCS. 
8) 
Study-Wide Recruitment Methods 
 
Clinician recruitment   
Clinicians representing UC Davis Family Medicine, UC Davis Internal Medicine, UCD PCN, 
and the VANCHCS will be solicited for participation in several ways including flyers, e-mail 
announcements, and presentations about the study in faculty and in-house staff meetings. (See 
pp. A003-A006 of Appendix for Recruitment materials). 
Once clinicians indicate interest, informed consent will be obtained detailing their 
responsibilities in the trial and soliciting their consent to have their patients recruited in the Pilot 
and/or RCT and to guide their enrolled patients through the study. (See pp. A032-035, A041-045 
of Appendix for clinician consent forms).   
Patient recruitment  
Patient recruitment will occur three ways. First, a clinician may ask their patients directly if they 
are interested in the study. Clinicians will provide interested patients with an informational sheet 
about the study, including research staff contact information, and patients will initiate contact 
with research staff if interested in participating (p. A008 of Appendix). At the point of initial 
contact, research staff will provide a description of the study and assess patient eligibility.  
Second, informational flyers will be posted in waiting rooms of participating clinicians (p. A007 
of Appendix). Interested patients can initiate contact with the research team or speak with their 
clinicians about the study. If a patient has a visit with a clinician (not yet enrolled in the study), 
the clinician may contact the researchers to complete clinician informed consent and enroll in the 
study. Once enrolled, the clinician can provide their patient with an informational sheet, and the 
patient can contact research staff. The screening process will proceed as described above.   
A third recruitment strategy will be an informational letter distributed to patients of enrolled 
clinicians informing them about the study (p. A009 of Appendix). Included with the letter will be 
a business card size magnet with the study name, telephone number, email and website to 
provide accessibility for patients interested in contacting research staff for participation. The 
letter will be sent to patients seen through accessing UC Davis Family Medicine, UC Davis 
Internal Medicine and UCD PCN (VANCHCS enrolled participants will be handled separately 
through VA IRB approval). We request access to personal health information (PHI) through a 
waiver of HIPAA Authorization for the recruitment purposes only (See HIPAA section below). 
Patients meeting specific ‘International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health 
Problems’ (ICD-9) codes will be sent a letter signed by their clinician or signed on their behalf 
(with clinician permission) by a study clinician (Dr. Kravitz or Dr. Wilsey). A list of patients 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 6 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
meeting ICD-9 criteria will be generated every four months and include a process to exclude 
duplicates within a 12-month period. The letter will inform patients about the study and ask them 
to contact the research team if they are interested in obtaining more information. (see p. A010-
013 of Appendix for list of pain related ICD9 codes). With the change to ICD-10 in October 
2015, mapping of the approved ICD-9 codes to ICD-10 was done. Recruitment letters will be 
based upon ICD-10 codes after October 2015. A list of applicable ICD-10 pain related codes is 
submitted for review. 
Patients who indicate an interest in participation and meet study eligibility requirements will 
have an Enrollment Interview and Treatment Planning Visit scheduled to coincide with an 
upcoming primary care or pain management appointment with their clinician. During the 
telephone call to schedule this visit, research staff will go through the consent form with the 
patient. Then prior to this visit, informed consent and HIPAA Authorization will be mailed to the 
patient with an addressed, stamped envelope and the request to return to project office by mail. 
Alternatively, informed consent and HIPAA Authorization may be conducted in person at the 
CHPR offices, at the patient’s home, or at a public location of mutual convenience and scheduled 
according to patient preference.  
Enrollment Interview refers to the meeting between a member of the research staff and patient to 
administer the baseline survey. Treatment Planning Visit refers to the meeting with the research 
staff member, intervention patient, and the patient’s clinician to set-up the Trialist App for the 
patient’s personalized intervention trial. Patients randomized to the control arm will have an 
Enrollment Interview but no Treatment Planning Visit. (A patient recruitment flow chart is on 
page A014 of Appendix). 
Patients in the pilot trial will not be randomized; instead all pilot trial participants will be 
assigned to the Trialist App (intervention arm) since the goal of the pilot is focused on the 
Trialist App functionality and patient adherence to the intervention. 
Incentives 
Pilot Trial: Patients will be provided up to $50 as incentives for participation in the pilot trial 
which includes completing baseline survey, daily mobile web surveys using the Trialist App 
during their n-of-1 trial and follow-up survey, which will be administered at the conclusion of 
their n-of-1 trial. The pilot follow-up survey is identical in content to the 3-month follow-up 
survey that will be used in the RCT. Incentives will be distributed in the following manner for 
the pilot: completion of baseline survey $10, completion of daily mobile web surveys $30, and 
completion of the follow-up survey $10.  
RCT: Patients randomized into the intervention arm will receive up to $150 distributed in the 
following manner: $10 for completing each survey (baseline, 3-month, 6-month, and 12 month),  
up to $60 for completing daily mobile web surveys during their n-of-1 trial, $25 for completing a 
result review visit with their clinician, and $25 for completing the Post-Result Review Interview. 
The incentives will be provided upon completion of follow-up surveys. The amount of the 
incentive for completing daily mobile web surveys will be determined by the following scale: 0-
59 percent completion of surveys: $20; 60-79 percent completion of surveys: $40; and 80-100 
percent completion of surveys: $60.  
Patients randomized to the control group (Usual Care) will be offered a payment of $50 at the 
completion of their 12 month survey. Control group incentives will be prorated for early 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 7 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
withdrawal or incomplete questionnaires. The prorated incentive schedule for control patients is: 
Baseline survey $10, 3 month survey $10, 6 month survey $20, 12 month survey $10. 
Clinicians consenting to participate in this study will incur practice costs resulting from the extra 
time required to complete surveys and discuss the study with patients.  In addition, for patients 
randomized to the Trialist (intervention) arm, clinicians will be required to participate in both 
trial set-up (beginning of n-of-1 trial) and results review (end of trial). Clinicians will be 
provided a $100 gift card for each patient they enroll in the study. Gift cards will be provided to 
clinicians at the end of the study after their participating patients have completed their n-of-1 
trial. Clinicians agreeing to audio-record the Result Review Visit and completing the Post-Result 
Review interview will be provided a $25.00 gift card incentive for their time. 
 
HIPAA 
Access to personal health information is required for two purposes in the study. In the first 
instance, we request access to personal health information (PHI) through a waiver of HIPAA 
Authorization for recruitment purposes only. HIPAA Authorization is not practicable as a 
meaningful recruitment strategy for the study that would generate a high rate of participation and 
could not practicably be conducted without a waiver of the authorization. Without the ability to 
identify and contact eligible patients, we could not effectively recruit subjects for the study. 
CTSC cohort discovery and EMR data retrieval service would be utilized to obtain patient name 
and address for those patients meeting age and ICD-9 criteria for sub-acute and chronic 
musculoskeletal pain (ICD-10 code for pain used after October 2015 and applicable list of ICD-
10 codes submitted) (See p. A010 of Appendix for list of ICD-9 criteria). A variety of methods 
will be in place to protect the PHI from improper use or disclosure. The following PHI would be 
requested: patient name, mailing address, date of birth, physician whom patient sees for chronic 
pain condition, ICD-9 (ICD-10) codes for primary and secondary diagnoses related to pain. 
Participant data and research materials which include and are not limited to demographics, study 
progress data, assessment data, and questionnaire data are managed using a defined set of 
integrated centralized database systems. All database systems, web-based or not, store data on 
secure, central servers. PHI acquired for the purposes of recruitment will not be disclosed to any 
other agency, party or individual. PHI obtained for recruitment purposes will be destroyed at the 
end of the recruitment period, which is estimated to be June 30, 2016. 
 
A second purpose for accessing PHI will occur during the RCT to verify clinic visits, scheduling, 
medications prescribed, and associated costs. HIPAA Authorization will be obtained at the time 
of informed consent from enrolled patients seen at UC Davis Family Medicine, UC Davis 
Internal Medicine, UCD PCN and VANCHCS, which is being handled separately through the 
VA IRB. PHI that will be accessed includes laboratory reports, emergency medicine center 
reports, health care billing statements, diagnostic imaging reports, outpatient clinic records, and 
discharge summaries (See HIPAA Authorization Form, p. A052 of Appendix).    
 
9) 
Study Timeline 
Pilot Trial: Clinician and patient enrollment will begin September 2013 and is anticipated to 
continue for two months. Enrollment date is the date a patient signs the consent form. Duration 
in the pilot study will last approximately one month from enrollment, depending on the length of 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 8 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
the Trialist treatment chosen, and duration of patient participation is not expected to exceed two 
months. 
The purpose of the pilot trial is to test the Trialist functionality, patient satisfaction, and patient 
willingness to complete the intervention (adhere to intervention treatments and daily intervention 
tasks). Since the pilot trial will not have a comparison group, extensive data analysis will not be 
done in this phase and estimated date of completion is February 1, 2014. 
RCT: Clinician enrollment will begin September 2013. We anticipate beginning enrollment of 
patients in January 2014 with completion by March 2016. This will require enrolling 
approximately 2.5 patients per week. Once a patient is enrolled, study duration for any individual 
patient (if they complete all surveys and intervention tasks) will be 12-14 months from 
enrollment. For intervention patients, Trialist treatment may last between 4-12 weeks and begins 
once baseline assessment and Treatment Planning Visit are completed. Both control and 
intervention patients will complete 3-, 6-, and 12 month surveys. A grace period will be allowed 
for completion of each follow-up survey, such that the 3-month survey can be completed 
between 3-4.5 months; 6-month survey between 4.5-9 months; and 12-month survey between 9-
15months. Patients failing to return a questionnaire during the corresponding time period will 
have missing data for the follow-up survey. Efforts will be made to obtain responses for the 
subsequent follow-up surveys. The timeline for survey follow-up periods is outlined below. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
 
 
 
Patient participation ends upon completion of the 12-month survey. The clinician’s primary 
involvement will end when all patients randomized to the Trialist intervention arm have 
completed the Results Review session. The clinician’s formal participation will end once all 
enrolled patients have completed the 12-month survey. Clinicians will not be administering the 
follow-up surveys hence their primary participation ends after the Trialist intervention Results 
Review is conducted.   
Primary Analysis (RCT) 
The main outcome is pain-related interference using the PROMIS measure reported at 6 month 
follow-up. Primary analyses are expected to be completed within six months following the 
completion of the 6-month surveys.  
Secondary Analyses (RCT) 
The secondary analyses include pain reported at 3- and 12-months follow-up, and analysis of 
secondary constructs at all follow-up periods (3-, 6-, and 12-month). Secondary constructs are: 
health related quality of life, participatory decision making, patient treatment satisfaction, patient 
trust in clinician, adherence, and clinician trust in patient.  
Analyses of pain reported at 3- and 12-months are expected to be completed within 6 months 
following the completion of the 12-month surveys. Analyses of the secondary constructs are 
expected to be completed within 12 months following the completion of the 12-month surveys. 
3-Month Survey 
6-Month Survey 
12-Month Survey 
Baseline 
Survey 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 9 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
 
10) Study Endpoints 
 
Study endpoints  
Pilot Trial: The primary study endpoint is the change in pain-related interference from baseline 
to follow-up survey.  
RCT: The primary study endpoint for intervention and control participants is pain-related 
interference measured at the 6-month follow-up survey.  
For intervention participants a secondary endpoint is the completion of the Trialist App. 
Additional study endpoints for control vs. intervention comparisons are baseline, 3 and 12 
months surveys.  
Safety Endpoints (Pilot Trial and RCT) 
Potential safety endpoints will be reported by enrolled patients and/or their clinician and 
adjudicated by the Safety Monitoring Committee (see also section 14- Provisions to Monitor the 
Data to Ensure the Safety of Subjects). These include: patient has pain or medication-related ED 
visit or hospitalization during study period; or patient or clinician withdraws from study due to 
safety concerns. 
 
11) Procedures Involved 
 
The study design is a randomized clinical trial of n-of-1 trials using the Trialist smartphone 
application. After screening for eligibility and informed consent, patients will be randomized to 
Usual Care (control) or Trialist (intervention). Randomization will be stratified by clinician in 
blocks in order to balance numbers and minimize selection bias. Patients assigned to Usual Care 
will receive usual course of care as prescribed by their treating physician. Patients randomized to 
the Trialist will design the n-of-1 trial in collaboration with their clinician.  
All patients enrolled in the pilot trial and RCT will receive a pain booklet based on Dr. 
Ward’s prior work (pp. A066-A081 of Appendix), and complete surveys at baseline, and 3-, 6- 
and 12- months post baseline.  
Patients randomized to the Trialist will meet with the treating clinician and study research staff 
at a Treatment Planning Visit to design the patient’s n-of-1 trial. The Treatment Planning Visit 
will occur during a patient’s normal clinic visit. Clinicians and patients will use the desktop 
interface of the Trialist to select two comparison treatments (see pp.A055-060 of Appendix for 
screen shots of the set-up screen). One important feature of the n-of-1 trial is that it can be 
tailored to the patient, and the participating provider’s clinical judgment and negotiation with 
the patient determines which specific protocol to invoke in the study. The customized option 
allows patients and clinicians to select from among acetaminophen, ibuprofen, naproxen, or 
opioid combination products containing either hydrocodone or oxycodone, several of which are 
available in different FDA-approved doses. Other options include tramadol and 
complementary/alternative treatments such as massage, meditation or physical exercise. If a 
clinician attempts to select multiple treatments from one column that are deemed clinical 
inappropriate due to potential drug interactions the Trialist App will not allow their selection 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 10 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
(e.g. a codeine combination product such as Tylenol with codeine and a hydrocodone 
combination product such as Vicodin). A message will be displayed notifying the clinician of the 
inappropriate choice. The desktop interface will also provide links to current prescribing 
standards and recommendations for the available drug treatment options. The links, unallowable 
treatment options, and warning messages were developed by Dr. Barth Wilsey a pain medicine 
specialist and study researcher. See p. A065 for links on prescribing standards and 
recommendations available to clinicians within the desktop interface. Additionally, the Trialist 
desktop interface will display a pop-up advisory box for any patient trial including codeine, 
tramadol, hydrocodone or oxycodone as part of one of the treatment regimens. This advisory will 
acknowledge that codeine, tramadol, hydrocodone or oxycodone was selected as part of the 
treatment regimen, remind clinicians that good clinical practice is to increase or decrease opioids 
gradually over a few days to prevent withdrawal symptoms, and suggest that clinicians should 
consider using 2-week treatment periods for patients taking these medications. While clinicians 
already know these practices, this feature adds an additional safeguard for patient safety and was 
guided by the belief that clinicians may benefit from the reminder at the time of trial set-up. 
Intervention arm (Trialist App) patients will also be advised that they will participate in a 
Results Review Visit following completion of their n-of-1 trial, which may last from 4 to 12 
weeks following the Treatment Planning Visit date depending on the treatments selected. For 
patients enrolled from a UC Davis based clinical practice and sign the HIPAA Authorization 
Form at enrollment, the research assistant will have access the patient’s EMR. This will help 
facilitate the scheduling of the Results Review Visit.  
Once the n-of-1 trial is designed, and a start date is selected the Trialist will send tailored 
prompts reminding patients to take their medicines, rate their symptoms, and (optionally) 
examine graphic displays of secondary outcomes. Patients can choose the start date of their 
study. This allows the patient time to obtain prescriptions (if applicable) before they start their 
personalized trial. At the end of a given treatment period, the Trialist will instruct the patient to 
continue the same medication or to switch treatments.  No washout period is planned due to the 
relatively short analgesic half-lives and multiple crossover design.  
If a patient enrolls in the trial and then wants to change his/her comparison treatment, he/she will 
be allowed to select alternative treatments providing the personalized n-of-1 trial has not started. 
However, the patient’s clinician must approve the change. Research staff will contact the 
clinician by telephone or email on the patient’s behalf to request the change or the patient may 
contact the clinician directly to request the change. The research assistant will not update the 
patient’s personalized Trialist treatment comparison without approval of the patient’s clinician. 
All communication about changes to a trial will be recorded in the Treatment Change Log Sheet 
(p. A085 of Appendix). Once a patient has started a Trialist treatment comparison they will be 
unable to make changes. However, there may be circumstances where it is no longer appropriate 
for the patient to be enrolled in a trial comparing the initially selected treatments. In that case, the 
patient shall stop the current n-of-1 trial treatments and may, at the discretion of the clinician and 
the investigators, start a new n-of-1 trial.  
A research assistant will be available to show the patient how to enter study data on his/her 
smartphone on a weekly basis regarding pain intensity, interference, and pain relief, as well as 
potential side effects such as fatigue, drowsiness, and nausea. This support will be provided by 
telephone and/or via email.  

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 11 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
Upon completion of the n-of-1 trial, the Trialist will generate reports (available for printing 
or viewing on a desktop) that patients and clinicians can examine together during a follow-up 
office visit.  
Pilot Trial: The patient will review data from the study with their clinician at a Results Review 
Visit to take place either at the UC Davis Center for Healthcare Policy and Research (CHPR) or 
at the clinician’s office.  The clinician will have access to the web application of the app via a 
desktop computer.  The clinician and the patient will retrieve individual patient data using 
passwords to obtain the individual’s responses to the survey during the study (see pp. A063-064 
of Appendix for examples of the result displays).  
RCT: For intervention arm (Trialist) participants, the Results Review Visit will occur during a 
regularly scheduled clinic visit after completion of the n-of-1 trial.  The clinician will have 
access to the web application of the app via a desktop computer.  The clinician and the patient 
will retrieve individual patient data using passwords to obtain the individual’s responses to the 
survey during the study (see pp. A063-064 of Appendix for examples of the result displays). As 
the study does not require patients to schedule an appointment at the end of the trial but rather 
adds a study visit to an existing appointment, several options are provided to patient and clinician 
to facilitate the completion of the result review visit. This visit may be completed in the 
following ways: 1) held in person during a regularly scheduled clinic visit within eight weeks of 
the trial end date; 2) if an in person visit is not feasible, the visit may be held by telephone at a 
mutually convenient and agreed upon date/time by clinician and patient within 8 weeks of the 
trial end date; or 3) the result graphs will be sent to the clinician and patient prior to the end of 
the eight week window if neither an in-person nor telephone discussion can be scheduled. 
Prior to the Result Review Visit, the patient and clinician will be asked for permission to 
audio-record the discussion of n-of-1 trial results during the Result Review Visit and complete 
an interview following the Result Review Visit. Informed consent will be obtained from both 
the patient and clinician in order to proceed. If both patient and clinician agree and consent to 
audio-recording, the research assistant present at the Result Review Visit will record the 
discussion with a digital recorder. Only the portion of the patient visit that pertains to the n-
of-1 trial results will be recorded, and the research assistant will stop the recorder and leave 
the exam room for the remainder of the visit. Clinicians and patients can verbally decline 
continued recording at any time. The goal is to audio-record 25-30 Result Review Visits.  
Clinicians will also be asked to complete an interview by telephone about a Result Review 
Visit. While we may record multiple Result Review Visit discussions for any individual 
clinician, as they likely have several patients randomized to the intervention, the clinician 
interview will be conducted only once with questions focusing on only the most recent Result 
Review Visit. Guiding questions for this interview are included for review. This interview 
will be audio-recorded and is expected to require 20-30 minutes. Interviews will be conducted 
by telephone and scheduled at the clinician’s convenience.  
Intervention patients will also be asked to complete an interview by telephone or in person, 
based upon patient preference, to learn about their experiences and what they learned by 
participating in their own n-of-1 trial. These interviews will be audio-recorded and should 
take approximately 30-45 minutes to complete. Guiding questions for these patient interviews 
are included for review. Questions asked of patients include their preferences for presentation 
of information; treatments compared for n-of-1 trial and guesses about which treatment would 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 12 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
be best and why; observations about Result Review Visit discussion with the clinician; and 
critique of the graphs provided for Result Review Visit discussion. 
 
Follow-up surveys for both intervention and control patients will occur at 3-, 6-, and 12-
month post enrollment. Patients will be contacted by telephone and/or email when a survey is 
due to be completed. Patients will have the option of completing the surveys online (e.g., 
Survey Monkey), through a mailed survey, or via a paper survey administered by the research 
assistant at CHPR. For intervention patients the 3-month follow-up survey will not be 
administered until the Trialist intervention is completed. Clinicians will complete a survey at 
baseline for each patient they enroll (pp. A101-104 of Appendix). Clinicians will have the option 
of completing the survey on-line, via a mailed survey, or paper survey at a meeting with the 
research assistant at CHPR or at their clinical practice.  
Sources of materials  
Materials include surveys (baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months), graphic illustrations of study data 
as presented by the clinician-facing Trialist system and the patient-facing system for episodic 
data entry, and EMR data. Patients in the Pilot trial will complete the Trialist intervention, 
baseline and follow-up measures (3-month survey administered as soon as the n-of-1 trial is 
complete). See pp. A087- 104 of Appendix for questionnaires, and p. A055-060 for the clinician-
facing Trialist system (desktop interface) and p. A061-062 for the patient-facing system (App 
screen shots). 
 
Patient participant materials.  Pilot study participants will only complete the baseline and 3-
month measures, where the 3-month follow-up will be administered as soon as the n-of-1 trial 
is complete. Materials administered to all patient participants include the following measures: 
 
Construct 
Measure 
Baseline 3 mo 6 mo 12 
mo 
Pain Interference 
(primary RCT outcome) 
PROMIS 8-item Pain Interference short form 
 
 
 
 
Pain Intensity 
PROMIS 3-item Pain Intensity short form 3a 
 
 
 
 
Health-related Quality of 
Life 
PROMIS Global Health Scale 
 
 
 
 
Participatory Decision 
Making 
CAHPS 12-month Medication Shared Decision 
Making 
 
 
 
 
Satisfaction 
Pain Treatment Satisfaction Scale 
 
 
 
 
Patient Trust in Physician 
Trust in Physician Scale 
 
 
 
 
Self-reported Adherence 
Analgesic Adherence 
 
 
 
 
Smartphone skills 
Smartphone usage 
 
 
 
 
Demographics 
Age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, 
educational attainment,  
 
 
 
 
Demographics 
Employment status 
 
 
 
 
 
Participants randomized to the intervention arm will also complete a Patient Expectations 
Questionnaire administered at the Treatment Planning Visit (pre-trial) and at the Result Review 
Visit (post-trial). The purpose of this questionnaire is to evaluate intervention patient 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 13 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
expectations and experiences with treatment and the extent to which patient expectations were 
met. Intervention patients will also be asked to complete the Trialist Acceptability and 
Satisfaction questionnaire to provide feedback on the use of the Trialist app and comments on 
the app features that they liked most or liked least to help improve the app for future use. The 
survey will be sent to participants after the n-of-1 trial is completed and can be completed either 
online or by pen/paper. 
 
In addition, participants in the intervention arm will answer the following questions using the 
Trialist App: 
  
Construct 
Measure 
Daily 
Weekly 
Daily Pain 
Adapted version of PEG scale 
 
 
Daily Sleep Disturbance 
Adapted question from PROMIS Sleep Disturbance 
scale 
 
 
Daily Fatigue 
Adapted question from PROMIS Fatigue scale 
 
 
Daily Drowsiness 
Sleepiness and drowsiness 
 
 
Daily Constipation 
Constipation 
 
 
Daily Cognitive Functioning 
Adapted questions from PROMIS Cognitive 
functioning scale 
 
 
Neuropathic Pain 
Adapted questions form Neuropathy Pain Scale 
 
 
Treatment Adherence 
Adherence to n-of-1 trial treatment(s) 
 
 
 
Clinician participants sources of materials.  Materials administered to clinician 
participants include the following measures administered at baseline and for the RCT 
only. 
 
Construct 
Measure 
Baseline 
Clinical Practice 
Clinical Practice Characteristics 
 
Clinical Trial Experience 
Clinical Trial Experience 
 
Demographics 
Age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational 
attainment, employment 
 
 
12) Data and Specimen Banking 
N/A 
 
 
13) Data Management and Confidentiality 
 
Data Analysis Plan 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 14 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
Due to the low n in the pilot study, extensive data analysis will not be completed on pilot data. 
The primary goal of the pilot study data will procedures to be utilized in the RCT.  
The experimental design for Aim 2 (RCT) is a simple two-arm pragmatic randomized trial with 
patients nested within physicians, and physicians nested within clinics. In order to eliminate 
confounding effects of physicians and clinics, patients will be randomized so that each clinic and 
each physician receives an equal number of participants for each condition (control and 
intervention). Outcomes will be analyzed both as changes from baseline to a single time point 
and as longitudinal evolutions in time. For change at a single point, say, from baseline to 6 
months, we will compare the groups by a t-test for continuous outcomes and chi-square test for 
binary outcomes. For the longitudinal outcomes, we will use a mixed model with fixed effects of 
time, treatment and their interaction as well as a random effect of time using the appropriate 
generalized linear model link function and distribution (normal for continuous outcomes; 
binomial for binary ones; Poisson for counts).  
Secondary analyses will examine: (1) potential interactions of covariates such as age, gender, 
type of intervention, dosage, time on treatment, physician and clinic and; (2) outcomes that 
change from baseline to 3- and 12- months. The primary analysis will be intent-to-treat which 
uses all participants as randomized. When no endpoint is available (e.g., a month 6 pain 
measurement for a change to 6-month outcome), we will assume no change. Further analyses 
will employ multiple imputation to fill in missing values, particularly in covariate-adjusted 
models. The longitudinal models can accommodate missing outcomes under the assumption that 
data are missing at random. 
Each patient enrolled into the intervention arm (Trialist App) will enter data for all periods 
including data for both treatments. At the end of each N-of-1 (Trialist App) study, statistical 
analysis will be performed in order to compare results on the two treatments and present these to 
the patient and clinician for use in deciding which works best. Because each patient’s data 
requires a separate analysis and these analyses will be occurring frequently, the analyses will be 
automated to run in the background once each N-of-1 trial is completed. The analysis will consist 
of running different Bayesian models that make different assumptions about the nature of the 
data (e.g., data with and without correlation over time, with and without interactions between 
time and treatment, different assumptions about prior distributions of model parameters, etc.). 
The results of these models will be compared as to which best fits the data using features such as 
parameters that explain significant variation, testing for the effect of outliers, checks on how well 
the predictions derived from the posterior distribution mimic the data. Models that are robust will 
be preferred. Results from the model that fits desired criteria best will be chosen. Patient and 
clinician will be provided with the estimate of the treatment difference and a measure of its 
uncertainty (a 95% Bayesian confidence interval) as well as the probability that each treatment is 
the best for each outcome in both a numeric and graphical format. 
Power Analysis 
Sample size is based on the assumption that a 0.4 SD difference (4 points) on the PROMIS pain 
interference metric is clinically significant. Assuming that 10% of those who enter the study will 
not complete an endpoint and will therefore be assigned a change of zero, we wish to be able to 
detect a 3.6 point difference in the full sample (endpoint completers plus non-completers). A 
sample size of 122 in each group (Trialist App and Usual Care) will have 80% power to detect a 
difference in means of 4.0 points assuming that the common standard deviation is 10 with mean 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 15 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
68 out of 100 as in published chronic pain samples using a 2 group t-test with a 0.05 2-sided 
significance level. Enrollment in the study is defined as (1) completion of the baseline 
questionnaire, (2) randomization to the intervention (Trialist App) or control arm, and (3) 
completion of one or more study-related visits. Allowing for 10% attrition, we will recruit 286 
patients into the study with the expectation that 244 will complete all 3 enrollment procedures. 
Approximately one-third of this number will be recruited at the VANCHCS. 
Data security 
Identical data safety measures will be utilized for the Pilot study and RCT. Multiple procedures 
for protecting against or minimizing risks will be put in place. All research staff will complete 
training for HIPAA and human subjects’ protections regulations and procedures.   
Confidentiality of participant data will be maintained through several mechanisms. All 
participants will be assigned identification numbers, and a list linking names and ID number will 
be stored separate from participant data in a locked file cabinet and electronically on a secure 
server at CHPR. Access to this list will be restricted to the principal investigator, project 
manager and research assistant. At the enrollment interview, all signed consent forms will be 
kept in a folder and bag for transportation separated from the baseline surveys. Upon returning to 
CHPR, the signed consent forms will stored separately from the completed surveys, and other 
research materials. Informed consent will be conducted in such a way that details of the study 
cannot be overheard by other patients and caregivers. Participants will be advised as to the risks 
to confidentiality during informed consent, namely how the privacy of their data may be 
compromised if their smartphone (for those randomized to Trialist App) is lost or stolen. 
Wireless data transfer will use encryption, and no personal health information will be captured 
during the initial study setup. 
For the medical record abstraction, the patient's last name, DOB, and MRN will be used to verify 
identify the patients for the abstractor to insure the correct records are accessed and only those 
for whom the study has obtained HIPAA Authorization are included in the abstraction. This 
information will be completed prior to abstraction on a separate cover sheet. Once the 
information on pain diagnosis and medications has been abstracted, this cover sheet will be 
removed and stored with the consent forms and other identifying information. The information 
that is abstracted will include only study ID and be stored with other questionnaire data, 
separated from any identifying patient information.  
 
 Intervention patients in the pilot trial and RCT will use their own mobile phone and download 
the Trialist App. Before the clinician and patient can create a Trialist treatment plan, they will 
be provided with a username and password, and enter the patient’s RCT number.  
Any data the patient enters in the Trialist app is encrypted and uploaded to a secure server using 
TLS/SSL protocols. The mobile phone data as well as all the log data will be stored in a secure 
password-protected server running the Linux operating system (Ubuntu 12.04.2) that only the 
server administrators have access to via SSH keys. Study data servers will be updated daily for 
the latest operating system and security updates by the server administrator and will be closely 
monitored during the study. 
For the Trialist system, security and privacy are paramount from the design level up to end-user 
operations and is built-into the Open mHealth architecture on which Trialist will be developed. 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 16 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
All data transfer will occur over HTTP secured by an SSL certificate (TLS 1.0 with 128-bit 
encryption) or SSH certificate (RSA-2048-based encryption). Login accounts will be established 
with only a username and password; no PHI will be stored with the user data in Trialist. In 
addition, user passwords will be stored using a one way hash created using Bcrypt with a random 
salt to randomize password hashing. This means that no one except the end user knows their 
password, and prevents against automated attacks where malicious software attempts to guess 
passwords by trying many login attempts. Passwords for login accounts must be a miniumum of 
8 characters.  
The server to run the mHealth software is housed in Amazon Web Services (AWS). Only server 
administrators with security training and access will be allowed to login to the machine for 
development or troubleshooting purposes. The server adminstrators report to Josh Selsky (see 23 
Resources available) whom reports to co-PI Ida Sim (see 23 Resources available). This server 
will meet the following technical specifications:  1) limited logon access; 2) up-to-date 
operating system; 3) secure network connections through firewalls; and 4) capacity to remove 
unnecessary applications from the operating system (locking down servers) while running a 
minimal amount of software on top of Linux.   
Separate servers are used to store the patient’s personal information (e.g., master list) compared 
to the data entered into the Trialist App. The server storing the patient’s personal information is 
stored at CHPR. For the Trialist system, the server will be housed in Amazon Web Services. 
These two servers will not be connected in any way. The only way to link patients data entered 
into the Trialist App is to manually compare the patients login name to the patients RCT (or 
pilot trial) number, and then compare the patients RCT (or pilot trial) number to the master list. 
This ensures only the principal investigator, project manager and research assistant can link data 
to an individual patient.  
Access to a patient’s EMR records will be limited to the research assistant, project manager, and 
principal investigator. Only the research assistant and project manager’s desktop computers at 
CHPR will have access to the EMR system. Their computers are password protected and receive 
regular software and security updates.  
All paper surveys will be stored in locked file cabinets at CHPR, and only the project manager, 
research assistant and principal investigator will have access to them. All identifiers will be 
destroyed by the project manager at completion of the study. 
Data quality control 
All data that requires manual entry (e.g., from a pen-and-paper surveys) will be entered by 
experienced researchers and checked for accuracy by comparing all entered data to the raw data. 
All statistical analyses will be reviewed by the researcher completing the analysis and by an 
additional researcher (either within, or external to the research team) to check analytical accuracy 
and integrity.   
Data Storage 
Screening and enrollment for the pilot and RCT will be conducted by UC Davis researchers at all 
research sites, and all consent forms and data will be stored at CHPR. All paper based study 
documents will be stored in locked file cabinets, and all electronic data will be stored on secure 
servers at CHPR with access limited to PI, Project Manager, and Research Assistant.  
Data Transportation 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 17 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
In instances where signed consent forms are collected at the Enrollment Interview, signed 
consent forms will be stored in a folder separated from other study documents, such as surveys, 
and chain of custody will be observed at all times. Upon returning to CHPR, the study 
documents will be stored securely in separate locked file cabinets from signed consent forms.  
 
14) Provisions to Monitor the Data to Ensure the Safety of Subjects 
 
This is a low-risk study, as all treatments will be known to and approved by the participating 
patients’ own clinicians. Nevertheless, because of the study’s complexities, a Safety 
Monitoring Committee (SMC) will be established. Once the first subject is enrolled in the 
RCT, monthly SMC conference calls will be held, subject to cancellation at the discretion of 
the SMC chair if there are no adverse events, no unanticipated problems or no other issues for 
discussion. The SMC will consist of Naileshni Singh, MD (chair), Stephanie Hatten, RN, 
Barth Wilsey, MD, and Daniel Tancredi, PhD.  
 
Unanticipated and adverse events will be detected and reported to the SMC in several ways. All 
patients and clinicians participating the in the clinical trial will have phone numbers of the 
Project Manager (Marois) and PI (Kravitz) available as part of the informed consent documents, 
and any reports are likely to be collected by telephone. The Project Manager and PI will enter all 
such contacts into a log for immediate reporting to the SMC chair and IRB if the matter is 
serious or urgent, or for routine consideration at the next scheduled meeting of the SMC. All 
such incidents will be reported to the UCD and VA IRB. In addition, the SMC will report 
adverse events considered related to the study directly to the NINR (National Institute of Nursing 
Research) Program Official within one week of the SMC meeting at which the event is 
discussed.  
 
The Project Manager will be directly responsible for assuring that all IRB requirements are 
attended to, including conformance with informed consent requirements, maintenance of 
confidential project files and minimizing research related risk. She will work closely with 
study investigators to assure seamless operations and transparent reporting. 
 
There are no planned interim analyses of the RCT as a whole. However, it is the nature of the n-
of-1 trials that individual patients and their clinicians can review selected interim results of their 
own n-of-1 trial data at any time. 
  
 
15) Withdrawal of Subjects 
 
If a patient meets eligibility criteria and consents to participation, there are no likely 
circumstances under which they would be withdrawn from the research without their consent. 
Pilot Trial: If a participant withdraws from the research before entering data into the Trialist, 
the patient will be replaced by an alternate selected during initial recruitment activity. Patients 
are free to opt out at any time and still be treated by their physician. If a participant withdraws 
once Trialist data collection begins, they will be considered a drop-out from the study and this 
information will be recorded along with the date of withdrawal. Participants will be asked, but 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 18 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
not required to provide a reason for withdrawal. SMC members will be notified of withdrawals 
on a monthly basis and if available, reasons for withdrawal.  
RCT: If an intervention participant withdraws from the research after beginning a Trialist 
sequence (but not completing the entire treatment sequence), the patient data will be used to test 
the usability of the system, but the patient data will not be reviewed by a clinician.  
In the event that a patient withdraws from the research before any Trialist data are collected, the 
patient will be replaced by an alternate selected during initial recruitment activity, and they will 
be classed as a screening failure.  
Patients are free to opt out at any time and still be treated by their physician. If a participant 
withdraws from the study, they will be classified as a drop-out and the date of withdrawal will be 
recorded.  Participants will be asked, but not required to provide a reason for withdrawal, and 
any collected data up to the day of their withdrawal will be used in analysis. SMC members will 
be notified of withdrawals on a monthly basis and if available, the participant’s reason for 
withdrawal.  
 
16) Risks to Subjects 
 
Physical risk is minimal, since the patient and the clinician work collaboratively to select the best 
pain control therapies given the patient’s preferences and clinical need.  In some cases, patients 
may experience troublesome side effects that warrant a follow-up visit with the clinician.  This is 
within the scope of standard care, and patients will be advised to follow up with their clinicians 
as they normally would.  Patients will also be responsible for any co-pays resulting from follow-
up care or research visits, which involve counseling and education as enhancements to usual 
care. However, the number of required visits is unlikely to exceed that which is required during 
usual care of patients with complex chronic painful conditions. The potential for legal risk is 
small since there is the potential for disclosure of private information on a smartphone, 
particularly if the phone is lost or stolen.  There is a small potential risk of breach of 
confidentiality should the participant’s personal health information be compromised. We believe 
we have established effective procedures to protect confidentiality through encryption and secure 
transfer and to minimize the legal risk for the participant or the study.  No alternative treatments 
or procedures are available. We do not anticipate psychological risks beyond those encountered 
in ordinary clinical practice. (For risks and protection of patient data, see data security Section 
13, Data Management.)  
The pharmacologic treatment options available in the Trialist (acetaminophen, NSAIDS, 
tramadol, or opioid combination products containing either hydrocodone or oxycodone) are all 
FDA-approved drugs. These medications are commonly used in practice. When clinicians and 
patient selected treatments with the Trialist, “pop-up” precautions and contraindications will 
occur if the drug combination selected is not clinically appropriate (e.g., information to prevent 
the risk of hepatic and/or renal injury arising from taking excessive amounts of acetaminophen 
and/or NSAIDs),  (Non-allowable drug combinations are included in pp. A065 of Appendix). 
For some treatment combinations, there is a theoretical risk of withdrawal symptoms as the 
patient goes completely off his/her opioids.  However, it is unusual to see opioid withdrawal 
when less than 30 mg per day of morphine-equivalents are administered [communication with 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 19 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
Barth Wilsey, co-Inv]. Additionally, the time it takes to become physically dependent varies with 
each individual, often making withdrawal a non-issue.  Regardless, an advisory pop-up box will 
be displayed if a clinician chooses codeine, tramadol, hydrocodone or oxycodone as part of the 
treatment regimen; include reminders to increase or decrease opioids gradually over several 
days; and suggest using 2-week treatment periods to allow for ramping-up and/or tapering. 
Additionally, the consent form will be written with language letting patients know what 
symptoms to expect if they are experiencing opioid withdrawal, which may include agitation, 
anxiety, muscle aches, increased tearing, insomnia, runny nose, sweating, and yawning for early 
symptoms and abdominal cramping, diarrhea, dilated pupils, goose bumps, nausea, and vomiting 
for late symptoms of withdrawal. Opioid withdrawal reactions are very uncomfortable but are 
rarely, if ever, life threatening. In any case, if the patient experiences withdrawal symptoms, s/he 
will contact the treating clinician who will be able to place the patient immediately back on an 
opioid-containing preparation. In this way n-of-1 trials are distinctly different from conventional 
clinical research; the treating clinician and patient are in charge, and they can do whatever 
comports with good clinical care. 
 
 
17) Potential Benefits to Subjects 
 
The potential benefit of the research to the participants in the intervention condition is direct; 
they will receive information that should improve their cooperation and adherence to tailored 
pain control regimens. In this way, n-of-1 trials differ from classic parallel group RCTs 
where participants enroll without any expectation of direct, personal benefit for decision 
making (See Appendix B). Intervention participants may benefit from having clear visual 
displays of their pain scores and metrics that apply to treatment side effects and overall quality of 
life. These scores can be shared with their clinician and compared to the results they achieve on 
different pain control therapies. The intervention could also reduce the discomfort associated 
with participants’ uncertainty about how to communicate with a clinician about pain symptoms 
and treatment. For participants in the control condition, the benefits are indirect, but we believe 
the value of a randomized experimental design with a control group improves the likelihood that 
we can adequately assess the effect of the patient’s regular pain treatments.  
 
18) Vulnerable Populations 
N/A 
 
19) Multi-Site Research 
Dr. Barth Wilsey is a study co-investigator and the partnering principal investigator at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Northern California Health Care System (VANCHC). Dr. 
Wilsey will obtain IRB approval at the VANCHC, and provide copies of all IRB documentation 
to Dr. Kravitz, PI and the project manager. The project manager will be responsible for providing 
copies of all UC Davis approved IRB documents to Dr. Wilsey, including protocol 
modifications. 
Dr. Wilsey and Dr. Kravitz (PI, UC Davis) will work closely together, and any modifications to 
the study will be overseen by them, and along with the project manager they will be responsible 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 20 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
for ensuring any modifications are implemented at all study locations. All communications 
(email, phone calls) to the research sites regarding modifications will be logged.  
All clinicians will be informed once their patient’s involvement in the study has finished (i.e., 
patient completes 12-month follow-up survey) via an email, telephone call, or letter.  
 
20) Community-Based Participatory Research 
N/A 
 
21) Sharing of Results with Subjects 
 
Pilot study: Participants will only receive results from the Trialist App. Due to the small 
number of participants to be recruited for the pilot, results from the baseline survey will not be 
provided to either participants or clinicians. 
RCT: After completion of the n-of-1 trial with the Trialist App, patients and clinicians will 
generate reports (available for printing or viewing on a desktop) that they will examine together 
during a follow-up clinic office visit. Overall results from the RCT, including analysis of the 
follow-up surveys, will be provided as a brief report to clinicians and participants.  
 
 
22) Setting 
 
The study will be conducted at four practice sites within the Sacramento-Yolo, CA 
region, and include UC Davis Family Medicine, UC Davis Internal Medicine, UC Davis 
Primary Care Network (UCD PCN), and the VA Northern California Health Care System 
(VANCHCS). Clinicians working with chronic pain patients will be identified and 
approached for participation in the study, and patients will be identified and recruited 
through participating clinicians. Primary research procedures include baseline, 3, 6, and 
12 month follow-up surveys, which will be self-administered via paper or online. These 
may be completed at the clinic, the project office at CHPR or patient’s home according to 
individual preference. Patients in the Trialist App intervention arm will also complete 
daily and weekly entries into the Trialist App on their smartphone in his/her home at 
his/her convenience.  
 
23) Resources Available 
 
The following individuals will participate in the study: 
 
Richard. L. Kravitz, MD, Principal Investigator 
Dr. Kravitz will be responsible for the scientific integrity and conduct of the entire project.  Dr. 
Kravitz is a general internist and health services researcher with more than 20 years of 
experience performing observational and experimental studies in primary care; he also spent a 
year consulting at RealAge.com, a health internet company.  Recent work has focused on 
interventions to enhance patient engagement in advanced cancer and depression.  He has 
published extensively on n-of-1 trials as a tool for estimating individual treatment effects.  For 
the past year, he has been an active member of Open mHealth.org to create a versatile platform 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 21 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
for helping patients and clinicians track their own health data. 
 
Deborah Ward, RN PhD, Co-Investigator 
Dr. Ward is Associate Dean, Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing at UC Davis.  Her most recent 
study evaluated a nurse-led, motivational-interviewing-based intervention for self-management 
of pain after spine surgery (funded by the RWJ foundation).  She has bother operational and 
research experience in health care system design and operations with a focus on patient 
communication.  Dr. Ward will provide input on design and conduct of the project in all phases.  
During Phase I she will provide the nursing perspective on design and optimization for the 
Trialist.  She will assist with recruitment of clinicians particularly nurse practitioners and 
physician assistants.  In the Phase II, she will contribute to the interpretation and dissemination 
of results. 
 
Barth Wilsey, MD, Co-Investigator 
Dr. Wilsey is a pain medicine specialist and researcher.  He is currently holds a VA merit Award 
in support of a project evaluating cannabinoids for treatment of neuropathic pain.  During Phase I 
of the project, Dr. Wilsey will advise the Development Team on the use of and deployment of 
clinical outcomes measures, particularly as they relate to pain and analgesic side effects.  
Building on his experience with the Prescription Opioid Documentation and Surveillance system 
(PODS), he will work closely with Open mHealth to design user interfaces for data entry and 
display that are clinically sensible, psychometrically valid, and user-friendly.  During the RCT 
Phase he will serve as head clinical liaison at the VA, recruiting physicians and patients and 
supervising the VA research assistants.  He will also participate in data analysis and 
dissemination. 
 
Ida Sim, MD, PhD, Co-Investigator 
Dr. Sim is a Co-Founder in Open mHealth.  She will participate in this effort via subcontract to 
UCSF.  Ida Sim, MD, PhD is a widely respected clinical informatician, health services 
researcher, and practicing general internist and a co-founder of OpenmHealth.org. She has 
extensive experience in clinical research and critical appraisal methods and specializes in the 
development of informatics technologies for evidence-based practice. As Co-Founder of 
OpenmHealth.org, she is building an open software architecture for mobile health that will 
promote and support best practices for mobile health interventions and evaluation methods. 
 
Marc Schwartz, User Interface Expert (Consultant) 
Marc Schwartz, is the founder and managing partner of IdeaSphere LLC. Based in New York 
City, IdeaSphere produces software systems and data centers facilitating many diverse projects 
for varying clients and communities. In the healthcare arena, Ideasphere’s body of work ranges 
from electronic medical records systems to surgical simulators to mobile phone software for 
conducting scientific and medical clinical trials. Marc has a Master’s degree from MIT and a 
BFA from The Rhode Island School of Design. Marc was also a US Fulbright Scholar in Japan, 
where he studied the cultural impact of mobile telephony. 
Marc will provide for Participatory Design Management by conducting initial interviews with 
stakeholders (including the project investigators plus a subset of the 6 clinicians and 6 patients 
about their current technological landscape and the software they currently use.  He will collect, 
organize and circulate conclusions from these interviews.  He will develop and prioritize design 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 22 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
goals and criteria with stakeholders.  He will create software prototypes to test and collect 
feedback through automated tracking, screen-sharing and interviews.  He will continue to modify 
design based on the feedback and modify prototype for re-testing.   
 
Josh Selsky, Software Designer Open mHealth (Consultant) 
Josh Selsky holds a BS in Computer Science from the Illinois Institute of Technology and is a 
software developer with 15 years of professional experience working at startups, within 
academia, and at corporations both large and small. In addition to architecting the Open mHealth 
software ecosystem and working with its technical community, Josh currently holds a senior 
software engineering and management position at CENS where he collaborates with health and 
computer science researchers on mHealth applications and manages a team dedicated to turning 
research into professionally developed software.  In coordination with Marc Schwartz, Josh will 
be responsible for programing the Trialist software as defined by the PREEMPT Development 
team.   
 
Christopher H. Schmid, PhD, Co-Investigator 
Dr. Schmid is a statistician and Professor of Biostatistics at the Center for Evidence Based 
Medicine Brown University.  His research goals for many years have been directed to the 
development and application of statistical methods, particularly Bayesian, for research synthesis 
of both study-level and individual participant level data. He has participated in several large 
federally funded projects that have combined both randomized and non-randomized data from 
different studies and databases in order to develop predictive models and to evaluate the effect of 
interventions in different populations. The proposed project to develop a mobile application to 
facilitate the conduct of N-of-1 studies builds on his previous work to develop Bayesian methods 
for combining N-of-1 studies to improve individual and population predictions and on his 
experience in an N-of-1 clinical trial of treatments for fibromyalgia. That study developed 
Bayesian multilevel models to predict risk and to feed back information to patients and 
providers. The proposed study is a logical extension to implement these methods in a user-
friendly tool with powerful analytic capabilities. In general, Dr. Schmid’s expertise extends to 
analysis of large databases, conducting simulations to address methodological questions, 
developing novel statistical methods, designing and analyzing clinical trials and developing 
Bayesian models.  He will be closely involved with development of the new methods as well as 
with developing computer programs to implement these methods. In addition, he will direct the 
statistical design and analysis of the RCT. 
 
Zachary Holt, MD, Co-Investigator 
Dr. Holt is the Internal Medicine Primary Care Director and an Assistant Professor in the 
Department of Internal Medicine. His clinical career places emphasis on the primary care of 
individuals with complex medical histories and significant psychosocial issues.  He spends a 
significant amount of time caring for patients with chronic pain and chronic controlled substance 
prescriptions, a population for which he has had informal training from the Pain Management 
Division (a part of the Department of Anesthesia) and formal training via the Chief Resident 
Immersion Program (CRIT), facilitated by Boston University faculty with SAMSA funding.  His 
role in the current study is to advise on the clinical aspects of the study execution, including 
strategies for working in the clinic and identifying suitable patients for the study population. 
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 23 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
Anthony Jerant, MD, Co-Investigator 
Dr. Jerant is a professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine and researcher 
with the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research. Dr. Jerant's research expertise includes 
seeking ways of improving the health of people with chronic health conditions and eliminating 
disparities in the outcomes of such conditions. Given the difficulties chronically ill people face in 
obtaining consistent, timely access to primary care, a major focus of his work is in developing 
and evaluating technology-enhanced care delivery to effectively expand the primary care 
encounter in space and time. Using such tools to bolster patients' confidence in their ability to 
master self-management of their chronic conditions is a particularly strong current theme in his 
research. His role in the study is to advise on clinical aspects of study execution, facilitate study 
work in the clinic and assist with identifying suitable patients for participation. 
  
 
Maria T. Marois MPH, PhD, Project Manager 
Dr. Marois is an epidemiologist with over 15 years of experience managing a variety of research 
studies. She has managed all aspects of several field studies, including a longitudinal cohort 
study of occupational exposures and health status of migrant farm workers in California’s San 
Joaquin Valley and a study examining pesticide exposure and respiratory health in Costa Rica. 
Dr. Marois will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the study. She will be 
responsible for the overall functioning of all project components; supervise staff; serve as the 
liaison between study staff, study participants, investigators and consultants; develop study 
instruments and data management protocols; and prepare study progress reports and manuscripts. 
 
Colin Barr, Research Assistant  
Colin Barr holds a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the University of Auckland, New 
Zealand.  He is experienced in IRB and data collection protocols.  He is skilled at the “safe 
handling” practices for safeguarding Personal Health Information (PHI), maintaining data 
integrity and data destruction. Under the supervision of the Project Manager and PI, Mr. Barr 
will assist in meeting the daily needs of the project through schedule maintenance, document 
management, project data tracking and the maintenance of data collection and outcomes.  He will 
assist with IRB modification/submissions, generate administrative documentation and 
presentations, and prepare and send recruitment/project materials.  He will communicate verbally 
and in writing with team members, stakeholders and collect and store data. 
 
Navjot Dhammi, Research Assistant 
Navjot Dhammi holds a Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences from the University of 
California, Davis. She has experience in patient recruitment, conducting research interviews, 
data collection and entering and processing data. Under the supervision of the Project Manager 
and PI, Ms. Dhammi will assist in meeting the daily needs of the project through patient 
recruitment, project data tracking and data collection. 
 
Other Resources 
Pilot Trial: A total of 8 participants and 2-4 clinicians will be recruited for the pilot study. 
Recruitment for the pilot trial is anticipated to require two months and will be conducted 
October-November 2013. 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 24 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
RCT: For the intervention, a total of 244 participants and 50-60 clinicians will be recruited for 
this study from 4 practice sites. To meet recruitment goals, 6-8 participants per clinician will be 
enrolled. The recruitment period will run March 1, 2014 – February 28, 2016, requiring enrolling 
approximately 2.5 patients per week during the two year period. Recent studies have suggested 
that 13% of physician visits are related to chronic pain, suggesting over 20,000 patient visits due 
to chronic pain at the recruitment sites, providing a feasible number of potential subject to meet 
recruitment goals. Additionally, an estimated 500-600 patients are taking opiates for pain within 
the PCN (personal communication).  
The facilities for study are more than adequate to assure project success. The study is based at 
the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research (CHPR) and includes office space, work stations, 
statistical services and other data management and quality control services. All research 
personnel complete human subjects and HIPAA training, and undergo training with the 
investigators and project manager, and participate in weekly meetings with the PI and research 
team to ensure all research procedures are implemented according to protocol and maintain 
patient confidentiality. 
 
24) 
Prior Approvals 
N/A 
 
25) 
Provisions to Protect the Privacy Interests of Subjects 
 
Screening for Eligibility 
When a patient contacts the research team about the study, the patient can make contact via 
email or telephone. The patient will be provided a brief summary about the study and asked if 
they would like proceed with the screening questions, and if they have any questions. The 
potential participant will have the option to re-schedule for a more convenient time when they 
are asked the screening questions, or to complete them via an online survey. Potential 
participants will not be required to answer any questions they are uncomfortable answering. 
However, non-response to a screening question will likely result in exclusion from participation 
since researchers will not be able to determine eligibility. Allowing the potential participant to 
answer questions via telephone, or an online survey provides them with the chance to use an 
interface they are most comfortable with.  
Informed Consent 
Before signing the consent form participants will be provided an opportunity to read it and ask 
any questions they may have. Participants will have the choice to sign the consent form, or sign 
the consent form at a later date if they are unsure about participation.  
Participants will be informed that if they sign the consent form, they have the right to withdraw 
from the study at any time, and do not have to provide researchers with a reason for withdraw. 
Participants will be provided a copy of the consent form to keep, which will contain the contact 
details of the PI and project coordinator, and the UC Davis and VANCHC IRB. Participants will 
be informed they can contact any of these people/institutions with any concerns they have about 
the study. 
Study Procedures 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 25 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
Participants will not have to complete any study procedures or answer any questions that they are 
uncomfortable with answering. For the baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-month surveys, participants can skip 
questions they do not wish to answer. Researchers will not have access to the participant’s 
Trialist password, and participants will not enter personal contact details into the Trialist App.  
Participants will not be able to see other participant's data entered into the Trialist App.  
 
26) 
Compensation for Research-Related Injury 
 
For reasons advanced earlier, this study is considered “no more than minimal risk.”  The reasons 
are that all treatments are FDA approved, treatment choice and administration are entirely at the 
discretion of the treating clinician, and other study procedures (surveys) carry no risk. Thus, 
except for the rare instance of opioid withdrawal among patients who choose to compare an 
opioid-containing regimen with a non-opioid regimen, the study conveys no risk beyond usual 
care. (We believe opioid withdrawal will be rare because: 1) many patients will choose to 
compare two non-opioid containing regimens; 2) most other patients will choose to compare one 
opioid-containing regimen with another opioid-containing regimen; 3) the vast majority of 
patients on opioids will be taking less than 30mg of morphine equivalents, the generally accepted 
threshold below which opioid withdrawal virtually never occurs; and 4) patients who develop 
early symptoms of opioid withdrawal can simply start taking their opioid again.) 
 
Patient consent forms for both the pilot study and RCT inform patients of the following: 
 
It is important that you promptly tell the person in charge of the research if you believe that you 
have been injured because of taking part in this study. If you are injured as a result of being in 
this study, the University of California will provide necessary medical treatment. Depending on 
the circumstances, the costs of the treatment may be covered by University or the study sponsor 
or may be billed to your insurance company just like other medical costs. The University and the 
study sponsor do not normally provide any other form of compensation for injury. 
 
This information is contained in the section, “What else do I need to know?” on page 5, 
paragraph 4 of the RCT patient consent form and page 5, paragraph 3 of the pilot study patient 
consent form. 
 
There is no risk of research-related injury to clinicians enrolled in either pilot study or RCT.  
 
27) 
Economic Burden to Subjects 
 
Patients will be responsible for any co-pays resulting from follow-up care, which involve 
counseling and education as enhancements to usual care. This information will be clearly stated 
in the consent form. Patients will require a smartphone with a data plan to be enrolled in the 
study. Patients will be responsible for all data charges they inccur using the Trialist App. It is 
estimated that the App will use 1.5 MB of data per month. In comparison, watching a 4 minute 
YouTube music video uses an average of 11MB of data [24]. Patients will be informed that the 
research team accepts no responsibility of data overage fees from their smarthphone carrier.  
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 26 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
28) 
Consent Process 
 
Clinician consent will be obtained through a variety of ways. Interested clinicians will be 
provided with informed consent at presentations about the study, in-house staff meetings and 
other personal contacts. Drs. Kravitz and Wilsey will be available to discuss the clinician role 
and responsibility in participating in the study as well as answer any questions. 
For eligible patients, the consent form will be mailed, discussed by telephone with the patient by 
the Research Assistant or Project Manager, and mailed back to the study office at CHPR prior to 
the Enrollment Interview. If a patient does not mail the signed consent form back prior to the 
Enrollment Interview, it will be collected from them in the clinic setting at the Treatment 
Planning Visit. Individuals listed in the application as being involved in the consent process will 
be familiar with the study and all procedures as well as the informed consent process in order to 
clearly answer questions and discuss all aspects of the study. Patients will be allowed to review 
the consent document and research staff will follow SOP: Informed Consent Process for 
Research (HRP-090). 
Upon being provided the consent form, potential participants will have an opportunity to review 
and ask any questions of the research team. Staff will go through sections of the consent form 
with participants, ask questions to assess patient’s understanding, insure patients are aware of 
their rights, and take the necessary time to review and make a decision about participation. The 
timing should allow potential participants as much time they require making their decision, up to 
the end of the recruitment period, or when maximum enrollment is reached.  
A waiver or alteration of the consent process is not required. The following groups of people will 
not be enrolled.  
Non-English Speaking Subjects –N/A, only English speaking subject will be recruited as 
software is only available in English at this time. 
Waiver or Alteration of the Consent Process (consent will not be obtained, required 
information will not be disclosed, or the research involves deception)—N/A  
Subjects who are not yet adults (infants, children, teenagers)-- N/A – Subjects will be over the 
age of 18 years. 
Cognitively Impaired Adults-- N/A 
Adults Unable to Consent -- N/A 
 
29) 
Process to Document Consent in Writing 
 
Research staff will follow the SOP: Written Documentation of Consent (HRP-091) to document 
consent in writing (see pp. A032-A054 for copies of all consent forms).  
 
30) 
Drugs or Devices 
 
N/A.  
 
References 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 27 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
 
1. 
Nikles, C.J., et al., Do individualized medication effectiveness tests (n-of-1 trials) 
change clinical decisions about which drugs to use for osteoarthritis and chronic 
pain? American Journal of Therapeutics, 2005. 12(1): p. 92-7. 
2. 
Boudreau, D., et al., Trends in long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer 
pain. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2009. 18(12): p. 1166-75. 
3. 
Chapman, C.R., et al., Opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic non-cancer pain in 
the United States: a research guideline for developing an evidence-base. The 
Journal of Pain, 2010. 11(9): p. 807-29. 
4. 
Dunn, K.M., et al., Opioid prescriptions for chronic pain and overdose: a cohort 
study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2010. 152(2): p. 85-92. 
5. 
Leverence, R.R., et al., Chronic non-cancer pain: a siren for primary care--a 
report from the PRImary Care MultiEthnic Network (PRIME Net). Journal of the 
American Board of Family Medicine, 2011. 24(5): p. 551-61. 
6. 
Paulozzi, L., et al., Vital signs: overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers---
United States, 1999--2008. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 
2011. 60(43): p. 1487-92. 
7. 
Corson, K., et al., Primary care clinician adherence to guidelines for the 
management of chronic musculoskeletal pain: results from the study of the 
effectiveness of a collaborative approach to pain. Pain Medicine, 2011. 12(10): p. 
1490-501. 
8. 
Dobscha, S.K., et al., Collaborative care for chronic pain in primary care: a 
cluster randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2009. 
301(12): p. 1242-52. 
9. 
Warner, M., L.H. Chen, and D.M. Makuc, Increase in fatal poisonings involving 
opioid analgesics in the United States, 1999-2006. NCHS Data Brief, 2009(22): 
p. 1-8. 
10. 
Bohnert, A.S., et al., Association between opioid prescribing patterns and opioid 
overdose-related deaths. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2011. 
305(13): p. 1315-21. 
11. 
White, A.G., et al., Direct costs of opioid abuse in an insured population in the 
United States. Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy, 2005. 11(6): p. 469-79. 
12. 
Kravitz, R.L., N. Duan, and J. Braslow, Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity 
of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. The Milbank Quarterly, 2004. 
82(4): p. 661-87. 
13. 
Longford, N.T., Selection bias and treatment heterogeneity in clinical trials. 
Statistics in Medicine, 1999. 18(12): p. 1467-74. 
14. 
Greenfield, S., et al., Heterogeneity of treatment effects: implications for 
guidelines, payment, and quality assessment. The American Journal of Medicine, 
2007. 120(4 Suppl 1): p. S3-S9. 

PROTOCOL TITLE: N-of-1 Trials Using mHealth in Chronic Pain 
 
Page 28 of 28 
Revised: April 11, 2016 
 
15. 
Lau, J., J.P. Ioannidis, and C.H. Schmid, Summing up evidence: one answer is not 
always enough. The Lancet, 1998. 351(9096): p. 123-7. 
16. 
Sorensen, T.I., Which patients may be harmed by good treatments? The Lancet, 
1996. 348(9024): p. 351-2. 
17. 
Gabler, N.B., et al., N-of-1 trials in the medical literature: a systematic review. 
Medical Care, 2011. 49(8): p. 761-8. 
18. 
Hays, R.D., et al., Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-
of-life change in individual patients. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 2005. 
28(2): p. 160-71. 
19. 
Krebs, E.E., et al., Development and initial validation of the PEG, a three-item 
scale assessing pain intensity and interference. Journal of General Internal 
Medicine, 2009. 24(6): p. 733-738. 
20. 
Kravitz, R.L., et al., Marketing therapeutic precision: Potential facilitators and 
barriers to adoption of n-of-1 trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 2009. 30(5): p. 
436-45. 
21. 
Kravitz, R.L., et al., An academic-marketing collaborative to promote depression 
care: a tale of two cultures. Patient Education and Counseling, 2013. 90(3): p. 
411-419. 
22. 
Day, J.C., Population projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race and 
Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050, in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population 
Reports, P25-11301996, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC. 
23. 
Miller R H, L. HL, and K. Duke, Health system change in the greater Sacramento 
area, 1997, Sierra Health Foundation  
24. 
Vodafone Ireland Limited. How much data will I use? 2013  [cited 2013 29 May]; 
Available from: https://www.vodafone.ie/internet-broadband/internet-on-your-
mobile/usage/;jsessionid=C2y1TrVfhLSh1rybLkLGQqJzyhn6x5q2NQrKMHLyf
p7Vv1zvd6Fj!-449149202!NONE?ts=1315657151882.