↓ Skip to main content

The effect of tailored Web-based interventions on pain in adults: a systematic review protocol.

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effect of tailored Web-based interventions on pain in adults: a systematic review protocol.
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0233-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martorella, Géraldine, Gélinas, C, Bérubé, M, Boitor, M, Fredericks, S, LeMay, S

Abstract

Information technologies can facilitate the implementation of health interventions, especially in the case of widespread conditions such as pain. Tailored Web-based interventions have been recognized for health behavior change among diverse populations. However, none of the systematic reviews looking at Web-based interventions for pain management has specifically addressed the contribution of tailoring. The aims of this systematic review are to assess the effect of tailored Web-based pain management interventions on pain intensity and physical and psychological functions. Randomized controlled trials including adults suffering from any type of pain and involving Web-based interventions for pain management, using at least one of the three tailoring strategies (personalization, feedback, or adaptation), will be considered. The following types of comparisons will be carried out: tailored Web-based intervention with (1) usual care (passive control group), (2) face-to-face intervention, and (3) standardized Web-based intervention. The primary outcome will be pain intensity measured using a self-report measure such as the numeric rating scale (e.g., 0-10) or visual analog scale (e.g., 0-100). Secondary outcomes will include pain interference with activities and psychological well-being. A systematic review of English and French articles using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library will be conducted from January 2000 to December 2015. Eligibility assessment will be performed independently in an unblinded standardized manner by two reviewers. Extracted data will include the following: sample size, demographics, dropout rate, number and type of study groups, type of pain, inclusion and exclusion criteria, study setting, type of Web-based intervention, tailoring strategy, comparator, type of pain intensity measure, pain-related disability and psychological well-being outcomes, and times of measurement. Disagreements between reviewers at the full-text level will be resolved by consulting a third reviewer, a senior researcher. This systematic review is the first one looking at the specific ingredients and effects of tailored and Web-based interventions for pain management. Results of this systematic review could contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms by which Web-based interventions could be helpful for people facing pain problems. PROSPERO CRD42015027669.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Other 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,540,460
of 7,551,260 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#547
of 589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,454
of 269,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#41
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,551,260 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 269,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.