Chronic pain is a significant problem affecting millions of Americans. Research has shown that psychological treatments can help people with chronic pain manage their pain and improve their quality of life. Three common psychological treatments for chronic pain are Cognitive Therapy (CT), Mindfulness Meditation (MM), and Behavioral Activation (BA). While research has shown these treatments are helpful for people with chronic pain, there is little research explaining why these treatments are helpful. The purpose of this study is to understand the specific ways these treatments work. Increasing our understanding of how these treatments work will help researchers and clinicians improve treatments for people with chronic pain in the future. As a secondary aim, this study will also examine the post-treatment mechanisms that explain relapse, maintenance, and continued gains associated with these treatments. Treatment moderators will also be explored.
The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the mechanisms of cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation (MM), and behavioral activation (BA) as treatments for individuals with chronic pain who endorse low back pain as a primary or secondary pain problem. Participants (240 individuals) will be randomly assigned to eight (8), 1.5 hour telehealth group sessions of (1) CT, (2) MM, or (3) BA. Mechanisms and outcomes will be assessed twice daily during 2-week baseline, 4-week treatment period, and 4-week post-treatment epoch via cue-elicited ecological momentary assessment (EMA); activity level will be monitored during these time epochs via daily monitoring with ActiGraph technology. Follow-up macro-level assessments will be conducted at 3- and 6-months post-treatment. The study will address two aims. Primary Objective: The objective of the proposed research is to examine the mechanisms of cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation training (MM), and behavioral activation (BA) \[Aim 1; Primary\]. After ensuring that there is at least a small effect of time on early treatment changes in the three mechanism variables, researchers will determine the extent to which late-treatment improvement in primary outcome (pain interference) associated with CT, MM, and BA is predicted by early-treatment changes in cognitive content (i.e., pain catastrophizing), cognitive process (i.e., non-judgment), and/or activity level (i.e., ActiGraph "activity counts"). Hypothesis 1a: Early treatment changes in pain catastrophizing, non-judgment, and activity counts are significantly associated with late treatment improvements in pain interference. Hypothesis 1b: The Shared Mechanisms Model hypothesizes that if changes in cognitive content, cognitive process, and activity levels are shared mechanisms across the three treatments, then treatment condition will have small and non-significant effects on early changes in the mechanism variables (i.e., the effects of the three treatments on the three mechanism variables will be similar; Shared Mechanisms Model). Hypothesis 1c: The Specific Mechanisms Model hypothesizes that if changes in content, process, and activity level are mechanisms specific to CT, MM, and BA, respectively, then treatment condition will have a significant effect on early changes in the mechanism variables (i.e., the effects of the three treatments on the three mechanism variables will be different, with CT having the largest effects on early treatment decreases in catastrophizing, MM having the largest effects on early treatment increases in non-judgment, and BA having the largest effects on early treatment increases in activity level). Further, later improvement in the primary outcome will be predicted by different mechanism variables as a function of treatment condition; that is, late treatment changes in pain interference will be substantially and uniquely predicted by early treatment changes in: (1) cognitive content (i.e., pain catastrophizing) in CT but not in MM or BA; (2) cognitive process (i.e., non-judgment) in MM but not in CT or BA; and (3) activity level in BA but not in CT or MM, in addition to each mechanism variable significantly predicting the primary outcome (Specific Mechanisms Model). Researchers also predict that change in the mechanism variables will precede and predict change in outcome, but not vice versa. Secondary Objective: As a secondary aim, this study will also evaluate the post-treatment mechanisms that explain relapse, maintenance, and continued gains associated with these treatments \[Aim 2; Secondary\]. The Shared (Hypothesis 2a) and Specific (Hypothesis 2b) Mechanism models will also be applied to data collected via EMA and ActiGraph daily during the 4-weeks post-treatment to better understand the post-treatment mechanisms that underlie maintenance of gains and relapse. Exploratory Objective: Test the Limit, Activate, and Enhance (LAE) moderation model. Specifically, to test if (1) higher baseline levels of catastrophizing are associated with a positive response to the CT intervention, (2) lower baseline levels of activity are associated with a positive response to BA, and (3) higher baseline levels of non-judgment are associated with a positive response to MM. Primary and Secondary Endpoint: The primary endpoint researchers propose for the primary study aim (Aim 1) is the post-treatment pain interference score, operationalized as an average of pain interference ratings made on the twice-daily diaries during the first four days after treatment (i.e., Days 43-46). The endpoint for the secondary study aim (Aim 2) is the post-treatment score at 28 days follow-up, as operationalized as the average of days 67-70 of pain interference ratings on the diaries. Design and Outcomes A randomized, 3-group parallel design, 240-subject clinical trial to test the mechanisms of cognitive therapy, mindfulness meditation, and activation skills on individuals with chronic pain who endorse low back pain as a primary or secondary pain problem. Interventions and Duration Participants will be randomly assigned to eight (8) telehealth group sessions of (1) cognitive therapy (CT), (2) mindfulness meditation (MM), or (3) behavioral activation (BA). Treatment groups will meet, on average, twice per week over the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Each session will last for a duration of about 90 minutes. Proposed mechanisms and outcomes will be assessed twice daily during 2-week baseline, 4-week treatment period, and 4-week post-treatment epoch via cue-elicited ecological momentary assessment (EMA); activity level will be monitored during these time epochs via daily monitoring with ActiGraph technology. Macro-level assessments will be conducted at pre- and post-treatment and at 3- and 6-months post-treatment. The total time involved in the study (excluding between session skills practice) is approximately 35-40 hours over an 8 to 9-month period. Sample Size and Population Researchers plan to enroll 300 participants with moderate to severe chronic pain including low back pain as a primary or secondary pain problem to achieve a sample size of 240 completers, with 80 completers in each of the treatment groups. Enrolled participants who complete the required baseline components (baseline data and demographic questions, pre-treatment extended assessment period, technology training, re-assessment of pain interference for general activities with a score of ≥3 for the past 3 months, re-assessment of pain consistency with a response of ≥50% of the time in the past 6 months, and a minimum number of EMA surveys during one week of Baseline Monitoring (Days 1-7) will be randomized to one of the three conditions.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
397
The cognitive-restructuring technique will be used to help participants recognize the relationships between thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and pain. This technique will help participants: (1) identify negative or unrealistic automatic thoughts; (2) evaluate automatic thoughts for accuracy, identify sources of distorted thoughts, recognize the connection between automatic thoughts and emotional/physical shifts; (3) challenge negative, distorted automatic thoughts via "weighing the evidence"; (4) develop new realistic alternative cognitive appraisals; and (5) practice applying new rational appraisals and beliefs.
Participants will receive training in mindfulness meditation, specifically Vipassana, which is the form of meditation typically implemented in mindfulness research. With this technique, the emphasis is placed upon developing focused attention on an object of awareness, e.g., the breath. This focus is then expanded to include a more open, non-judgmental monitoring of any sensory, emotional, or cognitive events. A standard script will be implemented by the clinician, and participants will be seated in a comfortable yet alert position.
Participants will be educated about the role of inactivity and behavioral avoidance in chronic pain and functioning. They will learn how to be aware of the activities they avoid because of pain, and how to set effective goals so that, step by step, they can start being more active and resume some activities they enjoyed in the past but are currently avoiding. Explanation and practice of a set of specific skills - including appropriate pacing skills - to facilitate an increase in appropriate activity level will be provided.
University of Washington, Ninth and Jefferson Building
Seattle, Washington, United States
Change in Pain Interference (Micro-level Change)
Change in pain interference with different activities/aspects of life will be measured with five items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference item bank. Responses from each item will be summed for a total raw score from 5-25. The raw scores are then converted to T-Scores, with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10. Higher scores indicate more self-reported pain interference with different activities/aspects of life. For the EMA data, slopes (reported unit of measure) were calculated by computing the linear regression slopes, which are equivalent in meaning and magnitude to change scores.
Time frame: Assessed via EMA twice daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (1-2 weeks) and late treatment (3-4 weeks) reported
Change in Pain Interference (Macro-level Change)
Change in pain interference with different activities/aspects of life will be measured with five items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference item bank. Responses from each item will be summed for a total raw score from 5-25. The raw scores are then converted to T-Scores, with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10. Higher scores indicate more self-reported pain interference with different activities/aspects of life. Change scores were then calculated for the pre- and post-treatment and 3-month and 6-month follow-up data.
Time frame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Change in Pain Intensity (Micro-level)
Change in pain intensity of chronic pain in general will be measured using a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Participants will be asked to choose a number from 0-10 that best represents their pain intensity. Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-reported pain intensity. For the EMA data, slopes (reported unit of measure) were calculated by computing the linear regression slopes, which are equivalent in meaning and magnitude to change scores.
Time frame: Assessed via EMA twice daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (1-2 weeks) and late treatment (3-4 weeks) reported
Change in Mood (Micro-level)
Change in mood will be assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Total scores will range from 1-5 for each affect schedule. A higher positive affect sum score indicates more self-reported positive affect while a lower negative affect sum score indicates less self-reported negative affect. For the EMA data, slopes (reported unit of measure) were calculated by computing the linear regression slopes, which are equivalent in meaning and magnitude to change scores.
Time frame: Assessed via EMA twice daily during 4-week treatment period, early treatment (1-2 weeks) and late treatment (3-4 weeks) reported
Change in Physical Function
Change in extent of physical function will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form-4A. Responses from each item will be summed to form a total raw score ranging from 4-20. The raw scores are then converted to T-Scores, with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10. Higher scores indicate higher levels (i.e., better) physical function. Change scores were then calculated for the pre- and post-treatment and 3-month and 6-month follow-up data.
Time frame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Change in Sleep Quality
Change in sleep quality will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sleep Disturbance Short Form-4A. Responses from each item will be summed to form a total raw score ranging from 4-20. The raw scores are then converted to T-Scores, with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10. Higher scores indicate more self-reported sleep disturbance. Change scores were then calculated for the pre- and post-treatment and 3-month and 6-month follow-up data.
Time frame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Change in Depression Severity
Change in depression will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression Short Form-4A. Responses from each item will be summed to form a total raw score ranging from 4-20. The raw scores are then converted to T-Scores, with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10. Higher scores indicate higher self-reported levels of depression. Change scores were then calculated for the pre- and post-treatment and 3-month and 6-month follow-up data.
Time frame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Change in Anxiety Severity
Change in anxiety will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Short Form-4A. Responses from each item will be summed to form a total raw score ranging from 4-20. The raw scores are then converted to T-Scores, with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10. Higher scores indicate higher self-reported levels of anxiety. Change scores were then calculated for the pre- and post-treatment and 3-month and 6-month follow-up data.
Time frame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Change in Medication Use
Change in opioid medication use will be assessed by asking participants to report use of opioid medications within the past 7 days. Participants will be asked to report medication name, quantity per dose (e.g., 50 mg), and number of medication doses taken in the past week. Researchers will calculate a morphine equivalent dose (MED) for opioid medications. Due to violation of assumptions of normality, the MED data was transformed into a categorical variable (no prescription, increase, decrease, no change).
Time frame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Change in Pain Intensity (Macro-level)
Change in pain intensity of chronic pain in general will be measured using a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Participants will be asked to choose a number from 0-10 that best represents their pain intensity. Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-reported pain intensity. Change scores were then calculated for the pre- and post-treatment and 3-month and 6-month follow-up data.
Time frame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
Change in Mood (Macro-level)
Change in mood will be assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Responses from the positive affect items will be summed for a total positive score ranging from 5-25 while responses from the negative affect items will be separately summed for a total negative score ranging from 5-25. A higher positive affect sum score indicates more self-reported positive affect while a lower negative affect sum score indicates less self-reported negative affect. Change scores were then calculated for the pre- and post-treatment and 3-month and 6-month follow-up data.
Time frame: Collected via phone at pre-treatment, immediately post- the 4-week treatment period, and at 3- and 6-mos after Tx
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.