CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationDigital Mental Health InterventionsPain Management and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guided internet-based cognitive behavioural treatment for chronic back pain reduces pain catastrophizing: A randomized controlled trial

Open access
Andersson, G, Buhrman, M, Nilsson-Ihrfeldt, E, Jannert, M, Ström, L·2011·Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
DOI 10.2340/16501977-0805
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether an Internet-based cognitive behavioural intervention would have an effect on the symptoms of chronic back pain. DESIGN: Experimental design with a treatment group and a control group measured before and after a treatment period. SUBJECTS: Participants who met the criteria for chronic back pain (n = 54). METHODS: All participants were screened in a live, structured interview before inclusion. The study period was 12 weeks and the treatment consisted of education, cognitive skills acquisition, behavioural rehearsal, generalization and maintenance. The main outcome of interest was the catastrophizing subscale of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire. RESULTS: There were statistically significant reductions from pre- to post-treatment in catastrophizing in the treatment group, and an improvement in quality of life for the treatment group. However, most outcome measures did not indicate a positive treatment outcome. On a scale measuring pain catastrophizing, 58% (15/26) of the treated participants showed reliable improvement, compared with 18% (5/28) of the control group. CONCLUSION: Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy can serve as a complement for individuals with chronic pain who prefer this treatment and have difficulties accessing specialist treatment facilities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2340/16501977-0805

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 121

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Andersson, G., Buhrman, M., Nilsson-Ihrfeldt, E., Jannert, M., & Ström, L.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
ORCID
Andersson, G
Venue
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Publisher
MJS Publishing, Medical Journals Sweden AB
Published
2011
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
500-505
ISSN
1650-1977 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2340/16501977-0805
OpenAlex
W2044038302
Cited by
121
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
8.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic back pain, pain catastrophizing, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, guided self-help, quality of life, chronic pain
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Back Pain, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Young Adult, Catastrophization

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