Harnessing psychology and technology to contribute to making health care a universal human right
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Fully automated interventions offer greater scalability, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness.
“fully automated interventions provide greater scalability, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness.163”
From Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: A scoping review of reviews (2023) · cites this paper as [163]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Muñoz, R. F.
- Affiliations
- Palo Alto University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Muñoz, Ricardo F.
- ORCID
- Muñoz, Ricardo F.
- Venue
- Cognitive and Behavioral Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-14
- ISSN
- 1077-7229 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2964610845
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognitive and Behavioral Practice (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of California
- Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (7RT-0057, 10RT-0326, 13RT-0050, 24RT-0027)
- Office of the President, University of California
- Brin Wojcicki Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- right to health care, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, digital interventions, evidence-based interventions, mental disorder prevention, knowledge sharing, global mental health
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
