When in Doubt, Ask the Audience: Potential Users′ Perceptions of Internet‐Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although research has demonstrated that Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (ICBT) for chronic pain helps with adjustment to pain, it remains unclear how this treatment option would initially be perceived by individuals with chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: To explore initial perceptions of ICBT and to examine variables that correlate with an expressed interest in ICBT as a treatment option among individuals with chronic pain. METHODS: A total of 129 individuals with chronic pain completed a survey assessing perceptions of ICBT and individual difference variables that could be correlated with expressed interest in ICBT (eg, demographic characteristics, pain, computer self-efficacy). RESULTS: Results showed that most participants perceived ICBT as a potentially valuable service with multiple benefits. Being female, having greater pain severity and interference, and having greater computer self-efficacy and lower computer anxiety were positively correlated with interest in receiving ICBT. CONCLUSIONS: Combined with previous research on treatment efficacy of ICBT for chronic pain, the results should serve to stimulate further research on integrating ICBT within existing health care services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".