Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• MacLean, R Ross
• Buta, Eugenia
• Higgins, Diana M
• Driscoll, Mary A
• Edmond, Sara N
• LaChappelle, Kathryn M
• Ankawi, Brett
• Krein, Sarah L
• Piette, John D
• Heapy, Alicia A

Titel

Using Daily Ratings to Examine Treatment Dose and Response in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Co-Operative Pain Education and Self-Management Clinical Trial

Ist Teil von

• Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2023-07, Vol.24 (7), p.846-854

Ort / Verlag

England: Oxford University Press

Erscheinungsjahr

2023

Quelle

Oxford Journals 2020 Medicine

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Abstract Background Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) has a strong evidence base, but little is known about when treatment benefits are achieved. The present study is a secondary analysis of individuals with chronic back pain recruited for a noninferiority trial comparing interactive voice response (IVR) CBT-CP with in-person CBT-CP. Methods On the basis of data from daily IVR surveys, a clinically meaningful change was defined as a 30% reduction in pain intensity (n = 108) or a 45% increase in daily steps (n = 104) compared with the baseline week. We identified individuals who achieved a meaningful change at any point during treatment, and then we compared those who maintained a meaningful change in their final treatment week (i.e., responders) with those who did not or who achieved a meaningful change but lapsed (i.e., nonresponders). Results During treatment, 46% of participants achieved a clinically meaningful decrease in pain intensity, and 66% achieved a clinically significant increase in number of steps per day. A total of 54% of patients were classified as responders in terms of decreases in pain intensity, and 70% were responders in terms of increases in step count. Survival analyses found that 50% of responders first achieved a clinically meaningful change by week 4 for pain intensity and week 2 for daily steps. Dropout and demographic variables were unrelated to responder status, and there was low agreement between the two measures of treatment response. Conclusions Collectively, results suggest that most responders improve within 4 weeks. Evaluating treatment response is highly specific to the outcome measure, with little correlation across outcomes.