OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a telephone-delivered, home-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for chronic low back pain in comparison to a matched supportive care (SC) treatment. METHODS:Participants (N=66) were patients with chronic back pain that were randomized to either an 8-week Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or a SC condition matched for contact frequency, format, and time. Participants completed validated measures of improvement in back pain disability, pain severity, and overall improvement. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analyses at posttreatment showed that the treatment groups not show significantly different improvements in back pain disability (mean changes, -2.4 and -2.6 for CBT and SC, respectively; Cohen d, 0.49 and 0.55, respectively) or reductions in pain severity (mean changes, -0.9 and -1.4 for CBT and SC respectively; Cohen d, 0.50, and 0.90, respectively). Participants rated their overall improvement levels at 31% (CBT) versus 18.5% (SC). DISCUSSION: Results from this clinical trial suggest that home-based, telephone-delivered CBT and SC treatments did not significantly differ in their benefits for back pain severity and disability, and may warrant further research for applications to hospital settings. Major limitations included recruitment difficulties that underpowered primary analyses, the lack of objective improvement measures, and the absence of a usual care/untreated control group for comparisons.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a telephone-delivered, home-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for chronic low back pain in comparison to a matched supportive care (SC) treatment. METHODS:Participants (N=66) were patients with chronic back pain that were randomized to either an 8-week Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or a SC condition matched for contact frequency, format, and time. Participants completed validated measures of improvement in back pain disability, pain severity, and overall improvement. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analyses at posttreatment showed that the treatment groups not show significantly different improvements in back pain disability (mean changes, -2.4 and -2.6 for CBT and SC, respectively; Cohen d, 0.49 and 0.55, respectively) or reductions in pain severity (mean changes, -0.9 and -1.4 for CBT and SC respectively; Cohen d, 0.50, and 0.90, respectively). Participants rated their overall improvement levels at 31% (CBT) versus 18.5% (SC). DISCUSSION: Results from this clinical trial suggest that home-based, telephone-delivered CBT and SC treatments did not significantly differ in their benefits for back pain severity and disability, and may warrant further research for applications to hospital settings. Major limitations included recruitment difficulties that underpowered primary analyses, the lack of objective improvement measures, and the absence of a usual care/untreated control group for comparisons.
Authors: Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Robert D Kerns; Gerold Stucki; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Daniel B Carr; Julie Chandler; Penney Cowan; Raymond Dionne; Bradley S Galer; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Susan Martin; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Wendye Robbins; James P Robinson; Margaret Rothman; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; Joachim Wernicke; James Witter Journal: Pain Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Mark A Slater; Anne L Weickgenant; Melanie A Greenberg; Dennis R Wahlgren; Rebecca A Williams; Christian Carter; Thomas L Patterson; Igor Grant; Steven R Garfin; John S Webster; J Hampton Atkinson Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: John McBeth; Gordon Prescott; Graham Scotland; Karina Lovell; Philip Keeley; Phil Hannaford; Paul McNamee; Deborah P M Symmons; Steve Woby; Chrysa Gkazinou; Marcus Beasley; Gary J Macfarlane Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-11-14
Authors: David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Whitney Scott; Charlie Park; Georgios Christopoulos; Steven Vogel; Jerry Draper-Rodi Journal: Schmerz Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 1.629
Authors: Wayne Brewer; Brian T Swanson; Toni S Roddey; Habeeblai Adewale; Caleb Ashmore; Jennifer Frerich; Cory Perrin; Alexis Ortiz Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2017-12-06
Authors: David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Whitney Scott; Charlie Park; Georgios Christopoulos; Steven Vogel; Jerry Draper-Rodi Journal: Pain Rep Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: Giorgia Petrucci; Giuseppe Francesco Papalia; Fabrizio Russo; Gianluca Vadalà; Michela Piredda; Maria Grazia De Marinis; Rocco Papalia; Vincenzo Denaro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mark P Jensen; Maria Elena Mendoza; Dawn M Ehde; David R Patterson; Ivan R Molton; Tiara M Dillworth; Kevin J Gertz; Joy Chan; Shahin Hakimian; Samuel L Battalio; Marcia A Ciol Journal: Pain Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Kate M O'Brien; Rebecca K Hodder; John Wiggers; Amanda Williams; Elizabeth Campbell; Luke Wolfenden; Sze Lin Yoong; Flora Tzelepis; Steven J Kamper; Christopher M Williams Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 2.984