# Differences in Pain Management Strategies Between Mobile and Immobile Hospitalized Patients: A Real‐World Data Analysis

## TL;DR

This study compares pain management strategies used for mobile and immobile hospitalized patients using real-world data from Austrian hospitals.

## Contribution

The study identifies differences in pain management interventions between mobile and immobile patients, highlighting the need for personalized strategies.

## Key findings

- Immobile patients were more likely to receive conventional interventions like physiotherapy and pharmacological treatments.
- Mobile patients showed a higher use of alternative therapies such as acupuncture and relaxing therapies.
- The study suggests a need to improve healthcare professionals' awareness to reduce disparities in pain management.

## Abstract

Hospital‐associated deconditioning is complex and multifactorial and has been shown to be closely linked to immobility, which, in turn, has serious consequences. Additionally, pain is seen as one major contributing factor impeding mobility and, therefore, increasing immobility. This study aimed to compare pain management interventions between mobile and immobile patients.

A cross‐sectional study using real‐world data focusing on patients in Austrian hospitals.

Data were collected by trained nurses in three periods (2021–2023). Patients were classified as mobile or immobile based on the mobility subscale of the Braden Scale. Statistical analysis involved, e.g., chi‐square and Mann–Whitney tests, with p < 0.05 being considered significant.

A total of 3214 patients had pain, of which 1661 were mobile and 1553 were immobile. Immobile patients were statistically significantly older, had more comorbidities, and were also more care dependent than mobile patients, measured with the Care Dependency Scale. Regarding pain management statistically significant, associations can be found between mobile and immobile patients regarding physiotherapy (24.7 vs. 53.1), occupational therapy (6.4 vs. 9.2), and pharmacological treatments (79.5 vs. 91.6), while mobile patients showed associations with alternative therapies such as acupuncture (1.1. vs. 0.3) and relaxing therapies (3.9 vs. 2.3).

Our study showed that immobile patients were associated with conventional interventions, while mobile patients showed an association with alternative therapies. In order to reduce these disparities, increasing the awareness of healthcare professionals in order to personalized pain management strategies is needed. Future research, especially qualitative or mixed‐method studies, focusing on the decision making of mobile and immobile patients and including other pain specific aspects such as pain intensity or location is also recommended.