| Title |
The effectiveness of information and communication technology-based psychological interventions for paediatric chronic pain: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis and intervention content analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0350-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angeline Traynor, Eimear Morrissey, Jonathan Egan, Brian E. McGuire |
| Abstract |
Resource and geographic barriers are the commonly cited constraints preventing the uptake of psychological treatment for chronic pain management. For adults, there is some evidence to support the use of information and communication technology (ICT) as a mode of treatment delivery. However, mixed findings have been reported for the effectiveness and acceptability of psychological interventions delivered using information and communication technology for children and adolescents. This is a protocol for a review that aims to (i) evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions delivered using information and communication technology for children and adolescents with chronic pain and (ii) identify the intervention components and usability factors in technology-based treatments associated with behaviour change. We will conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions for paediatric chronic pain delivered using ICT. We plan to directly compare ICT-based, psychological interventions with active control, treatment as usual or waiting list control conditions. This systematic review will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials will be included and the literature search will comprise Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library on Wiley, including CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Grey literature including theses, dissertations, technical and research reports will also be examined. Two review authors will independently conduct study selection, relevant data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. Risk of bias in included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool criteria. Two qualified coders will independently code behaviour change techniques according to the behaviour change taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques and a novel coding scheme for mode of delivery and usability factors. A quantitative synthesis will be conducted if appropriate. The findings of this review may offer insight for healthcare professionals working in chronic pain services and to researchers involved in designing and evaluating information and communication technology-based interventions. PROSPERO CRD42016017657. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 3 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 108 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,783,466
of 25,240,298 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,253
of 2,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,143
of 324,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#27
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,240,298 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,192 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.