↓ Skip to main content

Peer mentorship to promote effective pain management in adolescents: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
327 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
Peer mentorship to promote effective pain management in adolescents: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-12-132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura B Allen, Jennie CI Tsao, Loran P Hayes, Lonnie K Zeltzer

Abstract

This protocol is for a study of a new program to improve outcomes in children suffering from chronic pain disorders, such as fibromyalgia, recurrent headache, or recurrent abdominal pain. Although teaching active pain self-management skills through cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or a complementary program such as hypnotherapy or yoga has been shown to improve pain and functioning, children with low expectations of skill-building programs may lack motivation to comply with therapists' recommendations. This study will develop and test a new manualized peer-mentorship program which will provide modeling and reinforcement by peers to other adolescents with chronic pain (the mentored participants). The mentorship program will encourage mentored participants to engage in therapies that promote the learning of pain self-management skills and to support the mentored participants' practice of these skills. The study will examine the feasibility of this intervention for both mentors and mentored participants, and will assess the preliminary effectiveness of this program on mentored participants' pain and functional disability.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 323 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 16%
Researcher 42 13%
Student > Bachelor 32 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 8%
Other 59 18%
Unknown 58 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 79 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 68 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 13%
Social Sciences 18 6%
Unspecified 18 6%
Other 35 11%
Unknown 68 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 October 2011.
All research outputs
#2,941,091
of 4,507,072 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,013
of 1,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,774
of 64,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 64,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.