There is limited research exploring the age-related difference in communication when describing pain experiences. This project aimed to identify key differences between adolescents’, young adults’ and adults’ (i) preferred communication method, (ii) language content and (iii) lexical amount and variety when discussing their persistent pain experience using chatbot technology.

An exploratory concurrent nested mixed-methods design using a comparative analysis.

Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling strategy from two tertiary multidisciplinary pain centres in Australia.

20 adolescents, 20 young adults and 20 adults completed a pain history assessment using the Dolores application. The inclusion criteria for this study were (i) persistent non-cancer pain for at least 3 months, (ii) 10 years of age and over and (iii) adequate expressive and receptive language skills to complete the required tasks in English, as determined by clinicians in the treating team.

Drawn, voice and typed responses provided by participants during the chatbot interaction were analysed using content analysis. Fisher’s exact tests and ² tests were used to examine differences between age groups. Strong effect size estimates generated from comparative analyses suggested that adolescents were the most likely age group to utilise drawing (p=0.153, Cramer’s V=0.268), preferred typing over speaking (p==0.007, Cramer’s V=0.433). Young adults used the greatest number and variety of words in response to chatbot questions including evaluative language (p=0.097, Cramer’s V=0.296). Adults tended to use more metaphors (p=0.085, Cramer’s V=0.305) and had a strong preference for speaking over typing (p=

The results of this study provide insights into age-related differences in communication and preferences when using technology to communicate about persistent pain. Future research exploring individualised age-related approaches to pain assessment, supported by the findings of this study, in comparison to current standardised assessments administered by clinicians are warranted.

Chronic pelvic pain, defined as persistent pain in the structures of the pelvis, is a condition that significantly impacts the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of up to one-third of people worldwide, with substantial associated costs to both the individual and healthcare system/s. The present trial aims to establish the efficacy of e-hypnotherapy over relaxation and waitlist controls on pain, HRQoL and biopsychosocial outcomes, and evaluate cost-effectiveness.

A parallel-group, investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial will be conducted. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to either a 7-week online personalised e-hypnotherapy programme (n=44), a 7-week online personalised relaxation control (n=44) or waitlist control (n=44). The primary outcome will be self-reported pain level, and secondary outcomes will include psychological distress, QoL, pain catastrophising, self-efficacy, central sensitisation, somatic symptoms, fatigue and sleep. Cost-effectiveness will also be examined. Longitudinal qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants in the e-hypnotherapy (n=20) and relaxation (n=20) groups to understand meaningful change and barriers/facilitators for ongoing use.

This protocol has received ethics approval in Australia from the Deakin University Research Ethics Committee (DUREC ref. 2024-080). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences related to chronic pelvic pain and mind–body interventions.

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000368639p.

People without access to recognised and understood speech and/or written communication methods can experience exceptional disadvantage in health settings. This can result in poor health outcomes, lengthier hospital admissions and adverse events, including preventable deaths. Despite numerous attempts to integrate augmentative and alternative communication into health settings, the first-person ‘voice’ of the patient is often not accessible or prioritised, deferring instead to others, such as parents or carers, or the ‘best guess’ by healthcare professionals. The Talking Scrubs project aims to form a bridge to augmentative and alternative communication by locating key communication icons on scrubs (and scrubs/vest) to be used with patients (in and of themselves) and/or to prompt the use of patient individualised communication methods. The paper describes the methodological process for Stage 4 of the project. Prior stages involved investigating the concept, developing and validating instrument measures and co-designing and feasibility pilot testing the scrubs/vests. Stage 4 (this protocol) aligns with the diagnostic process, to test the feasibility and effectiveness of the scrubs intervention at two large, metropolitan medical centres with 5–10 general practitioners, approximately 30 patients and up to 10 flow-on diagnostic screening clinicians such as nurses and phlebotomists. Stage 4 is the first time the instrument measures will be applied and re-tested post-validation.

Using mixed methods, Stage 4 will apply the communication self-efficacy instruments co-designed in Stage 2 and validated in Stage 3 to measure effectiveness of the scrubs intervention by comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention changes in both clinician and patient population groups. Qualitative interviews, agency recorded data and participant journal recordings (optional) will be used to identify feasibility. SPSS V.29 (IBM, Chicago, Illinois, USA) will be applied to analyse participant communication self-efficacy measures and NVIVO V.10 (Lumiverso, Denver, Colorado, USA) to the retrieved qualitative data.

Stages 3 and 4 have ethics approval from the University of South Australia Ethics Committee identification number 206 930 and are registered as a clinical trial with Australia and New Zealand Clinical Research Trials (ANZCRT) with registration number 12625000490471p. Stage 1 (national survey) and Stage 2 (stakeholder focus groups) received ethics approval from Flinders University. Findings will be disseminated through national and international health translation platforms, publications, media and on the Talking Scrubs website.

ANZCRT with the registration number ACTRN12625000490471p.