Cited by 94Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

A quality review of smartphone applications for the management of pain

Open access
Portelli, Pamela, Eldred, Clare·2016·British Journal of Pain

Abstract

Smartphone applications (apps) are recent innovations that have not been studied extensively. The lack of regulatory body assessing the content of existing apps means that their quality is often unknown. This review aims to assess the quality of smartphone apps that claim to provide information and treatment for pain conditions. It assesses the degree to which apps adhere to evidence-based practices in psychological research for pain management and which stand the best chance of being effective for consumers. Another aim is to identify potential apps health-care professionals may wish to recommend to clients. Pain management apps on the official iPhone and Android stores were searched in January 2014. Those containing a psychological component in the app description were downloaded and rated for quality using a checklist devised by two researchers. The checklist was based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) guidelines since the latter is the most effective intervention for computerized programs. A total of 195 apps met inclusion criteria. Although CBT is a promising alternative to traditional psychological interventions, only six apps endorsed theoretical reference to CBT principles. Existing apps are often constructed by lay people or software developers, with little input from health-care professionals. Pain apps sometimes promise a solution to pain without a consideration of app content. The development of evidence-based apps and rigorous evaluation of any long-term outcomes are important in enhancing understanding of the potential of these apps.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2049463716638700

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]3. Disorbio JM, Bruns D, Barolat G. Assessment and treatment of chronic pain: a physician’s guide to a biopsychosocial approach. Pract Pain Manag 2006; 6: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  2. [9]9. Ardito S. US healthcare reform: a follow-up. Searcher 2010; 18: 10–13. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Portelli, P., & Eldred, C.
Affiliations
City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Portelli, Pamela
Venue
British Journal of Pain
Published
2016-07-08
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
135-140
ISSN
  • 2049-4637 (ISSN-L)
  • 2049-4645
OpenAlex
W2338201309
Cited by
94
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
17.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Bath
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
mobile application, pain management, app quality, cognitive behavioral therapy, evidence-based practice, digital health interventions, app store search

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