Dataset Information

Comparison of a Single-Session Pain Management Skills Intervention With a Single-Session Health Education Intervention and 8 Sessions of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Chronic low back pain (CLBP), the most prevalent chronic pain condition, imparts substantial disability and discomfort. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) reduces the effect of CLBP, but access is limited.

Objective

To determine whether a single class in evidence-based pain management skills (empowered relief) is noninferior to 8-session CBT and superior to health education at 3 months after treatment for improving pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants

This 3-arm randomized clinical trial collected data from May 24, 2017, to March 3, 2020. Participants included individuals in the community with self-reported CLBP for 6 months or more and an average pain intensity of at least 4 (range, 0-10, with 10 indicating worst pain imaginable). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to (1) empowered relief, (2) health education (matched to empowered relief for duration and format), or (3) 8-session CBT. Self-reported data were collected at baseline, before treatment, and at posttreatment months 1, 2, and 3.

Main outcomes and measures

Group differences in Pain Catastrophizing Scale scores and secondary outcomes at month 3 after treatment. Pain intensity and pain interference were priority secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 263 participants were included in the analysis (131 women [49.8%], 130 men [49.4%], and 2 other [0.8%]; mean [SD] age, 47.9 [13.8] years) and were randomized into 3 groups: empowered relief (n = 87), CBT (n = 88), and health education (n = 88). Empowered relief was noninferior to CBT for pain catastrophizing scores at 3 months (difference from CBT, 1.39 [97.5% CI, -∞ to 4.24]). Empowered relief and CBT were superior to health education for pain catastrophizing scores (empowered relief difference from health education, -5.90 [95% CI, -8.78 to -3.01; P < .001]; CBT difference from health education, -7.29 [95% CI, -10.20 to -4.38; P < .001]). Pain catastrophizing score reductions for empowered relief and CBT at 3 months after treatment were clinically meaningful (empowered relief, -9.12 [95% CI, -11.6 to -6.67; P < .001]; CBT, -10.94 [95% CI, -13.6 to -8.32; P < .001]; health education, -4.60 [95% CI, -7.18 to -2.01; P = .001]). Between-group comparisons for pain catastrophizing at months 1 to 3 were adjusted for baseline pain catastrophizing scores and used intention-to-treat analysis. Empowered relief was noninferior to CBT for pain intensity and pain interference (priority secondary outcomes), sleep disturbance, pain bothersomeness, pain behavior, depression, and anxiety. Empowered relief was inferior to CBT for physical function.

Conclusions and relevance

Among adults with CLBP, a single-session pain management class resulted in clinically significant improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes that were noninferior to 8-session CBT at 3 months.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167086.

SUBMITTER: Darnall BD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369357 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Many interventions for the treatment of low back pain exist, but the mechanisms through which such treatments work are not always clear. This situation is especially true for biopsychosocial interventions that incorporate several different components and methods of delivery.The study objective was to examine the indirect effects of the Cognitive Patient Education (COPE) intervention via illness perceptions, back pain myths, and pain catastrophizing on disability outcome.This study was a secondary analysis of the COPE randomized controlled trial.Mediation analysis techniques were employed to examine the indirect effects of the COPE intervention via residualized change (baseline - posttreatment) in the 3 variables hypothesized to be targeted by the COPE intervention on posttreatment disability outcome. Pain intensity at baseline, pain duration, clinician type, and a treatment-mediator interaction term were controlled for in the analysis.Preliminary analyses confirmed that changes in pain catastrophizing and illness perceptions (not back pain myths) were related to both allocation to the intervention arm and posttreatment disability score. The treatment exerted statistically significant indirect effects via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability score (illness perceptions standardized indirect effect = 0.09 [95% CI = 0.03 to 0.16]; pain catastrophizing standardized indirect effect = 0.05 [95% CI = 0.01 to 0.12]). However, the inclusion of an interaction term led to the indirect effects being significantly reduced, with the effects no longer being statistically significant.This study presents a secondary analysis of variables not identified a priori as being potentially important treatment targets; other, unmeasured factors could also be important in explaining treatment effects.The finding that small indirect effects of the COPE intervention via changes in illness perceptions and pain catastrophizing on posttreatment disability could be estimated indicates that these variables may be viable treatment targets for biopsychosocial interventions; however, this finding must be viewed in light of the adjusted analyses, which showed that the indirect effects were significantly reduced through the inclusion of a treatment-mediator interaction term.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on families' daily routines and psychosocial well-being, and technology has played a key role in providing socially distanced health care services.ObjectiveThe first objective of this paper was to describe the content and delivery of a single-session, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) intervention, which has been developed to help parents cope with children's anxiety and manage daily situations with their children. The second objective was to report user adherence and satisfaction among the first participants who completed the intervention.MethodsThe Let's Cope Together intervention has been developed by our research group. It combines evidence-based CBT elements, such as psychoeducation and skills to manage anxiety, with parent training programs that strengthen how parents interact with their child and handle daily situations. A pre-post design was used to examine user satisfaction and the skills the parents learned. Participants were recruited using advertisements, media activity, day care centers, and schools and asked about background characteristics, emotional symptoms, and parenting practices before they underwent the iCBT. After they completed the 7 themes, they were asked what new parenting skills they had learned from the iCBT and how satisfied they were with the program.ResultsOf the 602 participants who filled in the baseline survey, 196 (32.6%) completed the program's 7 themes, and 189 (31.4%) completed the postintervention survey. Most (138/189, 73.0%) of the participants who completed the postintervention survey were satisfied with the program and had learned skills that eased both their anxiety (141/189, 74.6%) and their children's anxiety (157/189, 83.1%). The majority (157/189, 83.1%) reported that they learned how to organize their daily routines better, and just over one-half (100/189, 53.0%) reported that the program improved how they planned each day with their children.ConclusionsThe single-session iCBT helped parents to face the psychological demands of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies should determine how the participation rate and adherence can be optimized in digital, universal interventions. This will help to determine what kinds of programs should be developed, including their content and delivery.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a single session compared with multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain treated conservatively in an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care.Methods and analysisIn this pragmatic randomised controlled trial, 152 older adults (≥65 years old) with neck or back pain initially referred for a consultation in neurosurgery, but treated conservatively, will be recruited through the advanced practice physiotherapy neurosurgery CareAxis programme in the Montreal region (Quebec, Canada). In the CareAxis programme, older patients with spinal pain are triaged by an advance practice physiotherapist and are offered conservative care and only potential surgical candidates are referred to a neurosurgeon. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms: 1-a single session or 2-multiple sessions (6 sessions over 12 weeks) of education and exercise with the advance practice physiotherapist (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome measure will be the Brief Pain Inventory (pain severity and interference subscales). Secondary measures will include self-reported disability (the Neck Disability Index or Oswestry Disability Index), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, satisfaction with care questionnaires (9-item Visit-specific Satisfaction Questionnaire and MedRisk), and the EQ-5D-5L. Participants' healthcare resources use and related costs will be measured. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after enrolment. Intention-to-treat analyses will be performed, and repeated mixed-model analysis of variance will assess differences between treatment arms. Cost-utility analyses will be conducted from the perspective of the healthcare system.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained from the Comité d'éthique de la recherche du CIUSS de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (FWA00001935 and IRB00002087). Results of this study will be presented to different stakeholders, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.Protocol versionV.4 August 2021.Trial registration numberNCT04868591; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundBehavioral pain treatments may improve postsurgical analgesia and recovery; however, effective and scalable options are not widely available. This study tested a digital perioperative behavioral medicine intervention in orthopedic trauma surgery patients for feasibility and efficacy for reducing pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and opioid cessation up to 3 months after surgery.MethodsA randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at an orthopedic trauma surgery unit at a major academic hospital to compare a digital behavioral pain management intervention ("My Surgical Success" [MSS]) to a digital general health education (HE) intervention (HE; no pain management skills). The enrolled sample included 133 patients; 84 patients were randomized (MSS, n = 37; HE, n = 47) and completed study procedures. Most patients received their assigned intervention within 3 days of surgery (85%). The sample was predominantly male (61.5%), White (61.9%), and partnered (65.5%), with at least a bachelor's degree (69.0%). Outcomes were collected at 1-3 months after intervention through self-report e-surveys and electronic medical record review; an intention-to-treat analytic framework was applied. Feasibility was dually determined by the proportion of patients engaging in their assigned treatment and an application of an 80% threshold for patient-reported acceptability. We hypothesized that MSS would result in greater reductions in pain intensity and pain catastrophizing after surgery and earlier opioid cessation compared to the digital HE control group.ResultsThe engagement rate with assigned interventions was 63% and exceeded commonly reported rates for fully automated Internet-based e-health interventions. Feasibility was demonstrated for the MSS engagers, with >80% reporting treatment acceptability. Overall, both groups improved in the postsurgical months across all study variables. A significant interaction effect was found for treatment group over time on pain intensity, such that the MSS group evidenced greater absolute reductions in pain intensity after surgery and up to 3 months later (treatment × time fixed effects; F [215] = 5.23; P = .024). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for time to opioid cessation or for reductions in pain catastrophizing ( F [215] = 0.20; P = .653), although the study sample notably had subclinical baseline pain catastrophizing scores (M = 14.10; 95% confidence interval, 11.70-16.49).ConclusionsStudy findings revealed that a fully automated behavioral pain management skills intervention (MSS) may be useful for motivated orthopedic trauma surgery patients and reduce postsurgical pain up to 3 months. MSS was not associated with reduced time to opioid cessation compared to the HE control intervention.

Project description:IntroductionChronic back pain is a widespread medical condition associated with high socioeconomic costs and increasing prevalence. Despite the advanced implementation of multidisciplinary approaches, providing a satisfactory treatment offer for those affected is often not possible. Exposure therapy (EXP) promises to be an effective and economical form of treatment and in a previous pilot study showed to be superior to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing perceived limitations of movement. The current study aims to further compare the efficacy of both treatment methods and identify those patient groups that particularly benefit from EXP.MethodsThe general objective of this randomized multicenter clinical trial (targeted N = 380) is to improve and expand the range of treatments available to patients with chronic back pain. As the primary objective of the study, two different psychological treatments (EXP and CBT) will be compared. The primary outcome measure is a clinically significant improvement in pain-related impairment, measured by the QPBDS, from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures are absolute changes and clinically significant improvements in variables coping, psychological flexibility, depressiveness, catastrophizing, exercise avoidance and fear of exercise, and intensity of pain. Participants are recruited in five psychological and medical centers in Germany and receive ten sessions of manualized therapy by trained licensed CBT therapists or clinical psychologists, who are currently in their post-gradual CBT training. Potential predictors of each treatment's efficacy will be explored with a focus on avoidance and coping behavior.ConclusionThis study will be the first RCT to compare CBT and EXP in chronic back pain in a large sample, including patients from different care structures due to psychological and medical recruitment centers. By identifying and exploring potential predictors of symptom improvement in each treatment group, this study will contribute to enable a more individualized assignment to treatment modalities and thus improves the care situation for chronic back pain and helps to create a customized treatment program for subgroups of pain patients. If our findings confirm EXP to be an efficacious and efficient treatment concept, it should gain more attention and be further disseminated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05294081. Registered on 02 March 2022.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reported that chronic pain affects about 100 million U.S. adults, with chronic low back pain (CLBP) cited as the most prevalent type. Pain catastrophizing is a psychological construct shown to predict the development and trajectory of chronic pain and patient response to pain treatments. While effective treatment for pain catastrophizing typically includes eight-session groups of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a single-session targeted treatment class yielded promising results which, if replicated and extended, could prove to efficiently and cost-effectively reduce pain catastrophizing. In this trial, we seek to determine the comparative efficacy of this novel single-session pain catastrophizing class to an eight-session course of pain CBT and a single-session back pain health education class. We will also explore the psychosocial mechanisms and outcomes of pain catastrophizing treatment. METHODS:In this trial we will randomize 231 individuals with CLBP to one of three treatment arms: (1) pain-CBT (eight weekly 2-h group sessions with home exercises and readings); (2) a single 2-h pain catastrophizing class; or (3) a single 2-h back pain health education class (active control). For the primary outcome of pain catastrophizing, the trial is designed as a non-inferiority test between pain-CBT and the single-session pain catastrophizing class, and as a superiority test between the single-session pain catastrophizing class and the health education class. Team researchers masked to treatment assignment will assess outcomes up to six months post treatment. DISCUSSION:If the single-session targeted pain catastrophizing class is found to be an effective treatment for patients with CLBP, this low cost and low burden treatment could dismantle many of the current barriers and burdens of effective pain care. Further, elucidation of the mechanisms of pain catastrophizing treatments will facilitate future research on the topic as well as further development and refinement of treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03167086 . Registered on 22 May 2017.