Cognitive behavioral therapy
BehavioralCBT endorses a pain management model and teaches people skills to cope with chronic pain.
Other names: CBT for chronic pain
NCT Number: NCT06044649
Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CP) is a major public health concern. Psychosocial treatments have been shown to be efficacious when compared to largely inert control conditions, but they are characterized by modest effects on primary outcomes. One strategy to boost efficacy is to increase our understanding of treatment mediators. Studies of mediators that directly compare different treatments with each other are needed to determine which mediators are treatment-specific, which are shared across treatments, and which contribute the most to clinical outcomes. Another strategy is to identify the patient characteristics that moderate treatment responses. Research is needed that is guided by theoretical models and that tests moderators across multiple treatments. Identifying subgroups of patients more likely to respond to one or another treatment can advance precision medicine by informing a priori patient-treatment matches that can optimize treatment effects. To accomplish these goals, the authors will conduct a randomized clinical trial to compare the mediators and moderators of the clinical effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Emotional Awareness and Expression Therapy (EAET) on adults with chronic spinal (axial) pain. Following baseline assessment of outcome variables as well as potential mediators and moderators, 460 participants will be randomized to CBT, ACT, EAET, or treatment-as-usual control (TAU). The three treatments will be conducted as individual therapy provided weekly for 8 weeks via telehealth. The researchers will conduct weekly assessments of both potential mediators and outcomes, as well as post-treatment and 6-month follow-up assessments. The goal of the study is to identify the most powerful treatment mechanisms - specific and shared -- and reveal for whom the mediator-outcome pathways are strongest.This project can increase the effects of our psychosocial chronic pain treatments by identifying the most effective treatment mechanisms and by informing patient-treatment matches that can optimize treatment effects.
This study is active but is not currently recruiting participants.
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United States
Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CP) is a major public health concern. A number of psychosocial treatments have emerged in recent decades to help address this problem. These interventions have been shown to be efficacious when compared to largely inert control conditions; however, recent meta-analyses indicate that most of these treatments are characterized by modest effects on primary outcomes. This is a critical shortcoming of these otherwise promising approaches. Rather than attempting to boost efficacy only by developing new and hopefully more powerful interventions, we can also look within our already proven treatments for ways to enhance the magnitude of treatment effects. One strategy is to increase our understanding of treatment mediators. Studies of mediators that directly compare different treatments with each other are needed to determine which mediators are treatment-specific, which are shared across treatments, and which contribute the most to clinical outcomes. The findings from such research could be used to inform adaptations to existing treatment that enhance their benefits. A second strategy for increasing the beneficial effects of existing treatments is to identify the patient characteristics that moderate treatment responses. Research is needed that is guided by theoretical models and that tests moderators across multiple treatments. Identifying subgroups of patients more likely to respond to one or another treatment can advance precision medicine by informing a priori patient-treatment matches that can optimize treatment effects. To accomplish these goals, we will conduct a randomized clinical trial to compare the mediators and moderators of the clinical effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Emotional Awareness and Expression Therapy (EAET) on adults with chronic spinal (axial) pain. Following baseline assessment of outcome variables as well as potential mediators and moderators we will randomize 460 participants to CBT, ACT, EAET, or treatment-as-usual control (TAU). The three treatments will be conducted as individual therapy provided weekly for 8 weeks via telehealth. We will conduct weekly assessments of both potential mediators and outcomes, as well as post-treatment and 6-month follow-up assessments. In addition to comparing the three treatments to each other (and TAU) for overall efficacy, we focus on two specific aims: Aim 1 is to identify mediators that are specific to treatments and those that are shared across treatments. Aim 2 is to identify baseline moderators of specific treatments and general predictors across treatments. This project can increase the effects of our psychosocial chronic pain treatments by identifying the most powerful treatment mechanisms - specific and shared -- and revealing for whom the mediator-outcome pathways are strongest. Via increased understanding of mediator and moderators, more effective pain treatment approaches can be developed, tested, and implemented.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Past 2 years (treated for or having experienced):
Also:
CBT endorses a pain management model and teaches people skills to cope with chronic pain.
Other names: CBT for chronic pain
ACT is based on an acceptance model that seeks to decrease pain avoidance behaviors and enhance engagement in valued, adaptive activities that contribute to fewer pain-related restrictions in functioning.
Other names: ACT for chronic pain
EAET advocates a pain treatment model in which pain can be substantially reduced by helping people learn that their pain is brain-based and can be substantially reduced or eliminated by decreasing fear of pain and of various emotional/interpersonal problems.
Other names: EAET for chronic pain
Participants assigned to TAU will not receive any additional psychosocial treatment beyond the other treatments they were receiving before enrolling in this study.
Other names: TAU
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
4-item measure of pain severity over past week (range 0 to 10; higher scores = worse pain severity)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
8-item measure of pain interference over past week (range1 to 5; higher scores = more pain interference)
Time frame: Weekly during treatment to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
1-item measure of overall health change since the start of the study (range 1 to 7; higher scores = more health improvement)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
4-item measure of current physical function (range 1 to 5; higher scores = poorer physical function)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
4-item measure of anxiety symptoms in the past week (range 1 to 5; higher scores = more anxiety symptoms)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
4-item measure of depression symptoms in the past week (range 1 to 5; higher scores = more depression symptoms)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
8-item measure of depression symptoms in the past week (range 0 to 3; higher scores = more depression symptoms)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
4-item measure of fatigue in the past week (range 1 to 5; higher scores = more fatigue)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
4-item measure of sleep disturbance in the past week (range 1 to 5; higher scores = more sleep disturbance)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
5-item measure of anger in the past week (range 1 to 5; higher scores = more anger)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
5-item measure of positive affect in the past week (range 1 to 5; higher scores = more positive affectivity)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
5-item measure of trauma symptoms in the past week (range 1 to 4; higher scores = worse PTSD symptoms)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
13-item measure on current readiness to adopt self-management for pain, Preparation and Action items only (range 1 to 5; higher scores = more ready to change)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
1-item measure on opioid use in past 7 days (range 1 to 7; higher scores = more days)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
3-item measure on current employment (options for current status and qualitative responses)
Time frame: Post-Treatment to 6-Month Follow-Up
8-item measure on patient post-treatment satisfaction (range 1 to 10; higher scores = more satisfied - also included qualitative responses)
Time frame: Baseline
10-item measure of current emotional awareness (includes qualitative responses); responses coded for levels of emotional awareness; higher = greater awareness; Form A baseline and Form B at post-treatment
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
2-item measure of health care currently, the past 6 months, and the past 4 weeks (2 items with yes/no responses and remaining range 0 to 4; higher scores = more treatment)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
32-item measure of current interpersonal problems (range 0 to 4; higher scores = more interpersonal problems)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
8-item measure on fibromyalgia symptoms in the past week (items with yes/no responses, a checklist, and remaining range 0 to 3; higher scores = worse fibromyalgia symptoms)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
6-item measure of psychological flexibility in the past week (range 0 to 5; higher scores = higher psychological flexibility)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
9-item measure on substance use in the past week (yes/no responses); higher scores = more use
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
20-item measure of PTSD symptoms in the past month (range 0 to 4; higher scores = worse PTSD symptoms)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 6-item measure of pain catastrophizing (range 0 to 4; higher scores = higher pain catastrophizing)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 4-item measure of current pain self-efficacy (range 0 to 6; higher scores = higher pain self-efficacy)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 4, 2-item measures of current pain attitudes (range 0 to 4; higher scores = more of that construct)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 9-item measure of behavioral activation for depression in the past week (range 0 to 6; higher scores = higher behavioral activation)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 12-item measure of situational self-compassion (range 1 to 5; higher scores = less self-compassion)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 8-item measure of current chronic pain acceptance (range 0 to 6; higher scores = more chronic pain acceptance)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 6-item measure of current values (checklist responses)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 4-item measure of emotional approach coping (range 1 to 4; higher scores = higher emotional approach coping)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 6-item measure of emotional breakthroughs in the past week (range 0 to 6; higher scores = more emotional breakthroughs)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 6-item measure of psychological insight in the past week (range 0 to 5; higher scores = more psychological insight)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 9-item measure of current belief of brain and psychological attributions for pain (range 0 to 4; higher scores = higher belief in brain and psychological attributions for pain)
Time frame: Baseline to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and weekly during treatment
Potential Mediator; 4-item measure of current pain anxiety symptoms (range 0 to 5; higher scores = worse pain anxiety symptoms)
Time frame: Weekly during treatment to post-treatment and 6-month follow-up
Potential Mediator; 2-item measure of adverse events in the past week and past 6 months (checklist responses)
Time frame: Weekly during treatment to post-treatment for three treatment arms only
Potential Mediator; 6-item measure of current working alliance (range 0 to 5; higher scores = better working alliance)
Time frame: Weekly during treatment to post-treatment for three treatment arms only
Potential Mediator; 6-item measure of current working alliance (range 0 to 5; higher scores = better working alliance)
Time frame: Weekly during treatment to post-treatment for three treatment arms only
Potential Mediator; 4-item measure on current patient engagement (range 0 to 8; higher scores = more patient engagement)
Time frame: Weekly during treatment to post-treatment for three treatment arms only
Potential Mediator; 8-item measure on current treatment expectancy and credibility (range 0 to 10; higher scores = better treatment expectancy)
Rush University Medical Center
Other
Comparative Mechanisms (Moderators, Mediators) of Psychosocial Treatments of Chronic Pain
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06696352
Back Pain, Chronic Pain
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06835439
Back Pain, Chronic Pain
San Diego, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06027099
Back Pain, Chemically-Induced Disorders
Stanford, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07137715
Back Pain, Back Pain Lower Back Chronic
Aurora, Colorado, United States
View Trial Details