Cited by 20Digital Mental Health InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The pain course: exploring the feasibility of an internet-delivered pain management program when offered by a tertiary pain management service

Dear, Blake F., Courtney, Catherine, Khor, Kok Eng, McDonald, Sarah, Ricciardi, Tahlia, Gandy, Milena, Fogliati, Vincent J., Titov, Nick·2018·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study examined the acceptability and preliminary outcomes of an internet-delivered pain management program, the Pain Course, when offered by a specialist pain management clinic in a large public hospital. METHODS: A single-group feasibility open-trial design was used and 39 patients participated in the program, which ran for 8 weeks. Participants were supported through the program with weekly contact from a Clinical Psychologist at the clinic. RESULTS: All participants provided data at posttreatment and >90% of participants completed all 5 lessons of the course. High levels of satisfaction were observed and relatively little clinician time (M=71.99 min/participant; SD=32.82 min) was required to support patients through the program. Preliminary evidence of clinical improvements in depression symptoms (avg. improvement=38%; Cohen d=0.74), but not disability levels or anxiety symptoms, was observed in the overall sample. However, evidence of improvements was observed across all the primary outcomes among patients who had clinical levels of difficulties with disability (n=20; avg. improvement=11%; Cohen d=0.64), depression (n=17; avg. improvement=35%; Cohen d=1.24) and anxiety (n=8; avg. improvement=29%; Cohen d=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential value of internet-delivered programs when provided by specialist pain management clinics as a part of their services and the value of larger scale studies in this area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000565

Cites

45 of 45 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dear, B. F., Courtney, C., Khor, K. E., McDonald, S., Ricciardi, T., Gandy, M., Fogliati, V. J., & Titov, N.
Affiliations
  • Prince of Wales Hospital (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Department of Psychology, Macquarie University
Corresponding author
  • Dear, Blake F.
  • McDonald, Sarah
  • Ricciardi, Tahlia
  • Gandy, Milena
  • Fogliati, Vincent J.
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2018-06
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
505-514
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2765577409
Cited by
19
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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
pain course, online intervention, pain management, chronic pain, depression, anxiety, disability, feasibility, acceptability
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Australia, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Mood Disorders, Self Efficacy, Internet, Young Adult, Pain Management

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