↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Psychological therapies (remotely delivered) for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
69 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
429 Mendeley
Title
Psychological therapies (remotely delivered) for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011118.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Fisher, Emily Law, Tonya M Palermo, Christopher Eccleston

Abstract

Chronic pain is common during childhood and adolescence and is associated with negative outcomes such as increased severity of pain, reduced function (e.g. missing school), and low mood (e.g. high levels of depression and anxiety). Psychological therapies, traditionally delivered face-to-face with a therapist, are efficacious at reducing pain intensity and disability. However, new and innovative technology is being used to deliver these psychological therapies remotely, meaning barriers to access to treatment such as distance and cost can be removed or reduced. Therapies delivered with technological devices, such as the Internet, computer-based programmes, smartphone applications, or via the telephone, can be used to deliver treatment to children and adolescents with chronic pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 429 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 420 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 97 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 14%
Researcher 52 12%
Student > Bachelor 45 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 9%
Other 67 16%
Unknown 70 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 27%
Psychology 98 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 13%
Social Sciences 21 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 2%
Other 42 10%
Unknown 92 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#698,734
of 19,194,973 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,650
of 11,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,898
of 234,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,194,973 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.