↓ Skip to main content

Expectations, effect and experiences of an easily accessible self-management intervention for people with chronic pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Expectations, effect and experiences of an easily accessible self-management intervention for people with chronic pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study
Published in
Trials, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1462-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Torunn Hatlen Nøst, Aslak Steinsbekk, Ola Bratås, Kjersti Grønning

Abstract

People struggling with chronic pain may benefit from different types of non-pharmacological interventions such as self-management courses. Self-management courses aim to increase participants' skills and knowledge in managing chronic conditions. Community health-care services in Norway have increasingly established Healthy Life Centres (HLCs) to offer easily accessible interventions to people in need of support to better handle a life with chronic illness. The aim of this trial is to investigate the expectations, effect and experience of an easily accessible, group-based self-management course delivered at a HLC for people with chronic pain. This is an open pragmatic two-armed randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study. The intervention is a self-management course comprising education, discussions, exchange of experiences between the participants, and physical movement exercises. The control group is offered a drop-in outdoor physical activity. The intervention period is 6 weeks. The primary outcome is patient activation measured by the patient activation measure (PAM). The secondary outcomes include measures of self-efficacy, pain and quality of life. Data will be collected at baseline, and after 3, 6 and 12 months. Using a mixed linear model, the number needed in each arm to achieve a power of 80 % becomes 55. To allow for dropout, the aim is to include 120 participants. Analysis will be done using mixed linear models. In the embedded qualitative study, we will perform semi-structured face-to-face interviews with a sample from both trial arms before randomisation and after 3 and 12 months. The topics elaborated will be motivation for participation and experiences with the activity related to possible changes in managing and coping with chronic pain. There is need for more knowledge on interventions delivering self-care support in an easily accessible way that aim to reach those in need of this kind of health service. This trial will produce important knowledge on the effect and the experiences of participants in such an easily accessible self-management course delivered in Norwegian public primary care. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02531282 . Registered on 21 August 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 184 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 17%
Student > Master 27 15%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 58 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 50 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 15%
Psychology 10 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 60 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,077,327
of 13,785,324 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,786
of 3,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,418
of 264,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,785,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.