Cited by 49Medicine, History, and PhilosophyComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesHealth, psychology, and well-being

The Biopsychosocial model: Redefining osteopathic philosophy?

Penney, J. Nicholas·2013·International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijosm.2012.12.002

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Penney, J. N.
Affiliations
University of Huddersfield (GB)
Corresponding author
Penney, J. Nicholas
Venue
International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-03
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
33-37
ISSN
1746-0689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1992437084
Cited by
49
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International journal of osteopathic medicine (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, psychology, and well-being
Keywords
biopsychosocial model, osteopathic philosophy, osteopathy, evidence-based practice, clinical care, clinical management, best practices

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