Cited by 60Digital Mental Health InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Treatment

Guided Internet‐delivered cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic pain patients who have residual symptoms after rehabilitation treatment: Randomized controlled trial

Buhrman, M., Fredriksson, A., Edström, G., Shafiei, D., Tärnqvist, C., Ljótsson, B., Hursti, T., Gordh, T. +1 more·2013·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Background: Chronic pain can be treated with cognitive behavioural therapy delivered in multidisciplinary settings. However, relapse is likely, and there is a need for cost‐effective secondary interventions for persons with residual problems after rehabilitation. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of a guided Internet‐delivered cognitive behavioural intervention for patients who had completed multidisciplinary treatment at a pain management unit. Methods: A total of 72 persons with residual pain problems were included in the study and were randomized to either treatment for 8 weeks or to a control group who were invited to participate in a moderated online discussion forum. The participants had different chronic pain conditions, and a majority were women (72%). Twenty‐two percent of the participants dropped out of the study before the post‐treatment assessment. Results: Intent‐to‐treat analyses demonstrated differences on the catastrophizing subscale of the C oping S trategies Q uestionnaire ( C ohen's d = 0.70), in favour of the treatment group but a small within‐group effect. Differences were also found on other measures of pain‐related distress, anxiety and depressive symptoms. A 6‐month follow‐up exhibited maintenance of improvements. Conclusions: We conclude that Internet‐delivered treatment can be partly effective for persons with residual problems after completed pain rehabilitation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00244.x

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buhrman, M., Fredriksson, A., Edström, G., Shafiei, D., Tärnqvist, C., Ljótsson, B., Hursti, T., Gordh, T., & Andersson, G.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Buhrman, M.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-11-09
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
753-765
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W1917597118
Cited by
60
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
5.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Akademiska Sjukhuset
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic pain, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, pain rehabilitation, relapse, pain catastrophizing, pain-related distress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, maintenance of treatment effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review