↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a Psychological Intervention for Patients with Chronic Pain in Primary Care

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Evaluation of a Psychological Intervention for Patients with Chronic Pain in Primary Care
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00435
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francisco J. Cano-García, María del Carmen González-Ortega, Susana Sanduvete-Chaves, Salvador Chacón-Moscoso, Roberto Moreno-Borrego

Abstract

According to evidence from recent decades, multicomponent programs of psychological intervention in people with chronic pain have reached the highest levels of efficacy. However, there are still many questions left to answer since efficacy has mainly been shown among upper-middle class patients in English-speaking countries and in controlled studies, with expert professionals guiding the intervention and with a limited number of domains of painful experience evaluated. For this study, a program of multicomponent psychological intervention was implemented: (a) based on techniques with empirical evidence, but developed in Spain; (b) at a public primary care center; (c) among patients with limited financial resources and lower education; (d) by a novice psychologist; and (e) evaluating all domains of painful experience using the instruments recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT). The aim of this study was to evaluate this program. We selected a consecutive sample of 40 patients treated for chronic non-cancer pain at a primary care center in Utrera (Seville, Spain), adults who were not in any employment dispute, not suffering from psychopathology, and not receiving psychological treatment. The patients participated in 10 psychological intervention sessions, one per week, in groups of 13-14 people, which addressed psychoeducation for pain; breathing and relaxation; attention management; cognitive restructuring; problem-solving; emotional management; social skills; life values and goal setting; time organization and behavioral activation; physical exercise promotion; postural and sleep hygiene; and relapse prevention. In addition to the initial assessment, measures were taken after the intervention and at a 6-month follow-up. We assessed the program throughout the process: before, during and after the implementation. Results were analyzed statistically (significance and effect size) and from a clinical perspective (clinical significance according to IMMPACT standards). According to this analysis, the intervention was successful, although improvement tended to decline at follow-up, and the detailed design gave the program assessment a high degree of standardization and specification. Finally, suggestions for improvement are presented for upcoming applications of the program.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 15%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 45 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Unspecified 5 3%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 47 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 June 2020.
All research outputs
#7,523,962
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,988
of 30,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,118
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#280
of 533 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
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 309,217 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 533 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.