Cited by 7Digital Mental Health InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

A grounded theory of attitudes towards online psychological pain management interventions in chronic pain patients

Portelli, Pamela, Eldred, Clare·2017·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.034

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

2 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Portelli, P., & Eldred, C.
Affiliations
City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Portelli, Pamela
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
76
Pages
329-340
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2737320501
Cited by
7
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
chronic pain, online psychological intervention, pain management, help-seeking, service uptake, access barriers, human contact, digital mental health services

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