Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy and applied relaxation for longstanding pain: a randomized controlled trial |
Kemani MK, Olsson GL, Lekander M, Hesser H, Andersson E, Wicksell RK |
The Clinical Journal of Pain 2015 Nov;31(11):1004-1016 |
clinical trial |
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To date, few studies have compared acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for longstanding pain with established treatments. Only 1 study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ACT. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ACT and applied relaxation (AR) for adults with unspecific, longstanding pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On the basis of the inclusion criteria 60 consecutive patients received 12 weekly group sessions of ACT or AR. Data were collected pretreatment, midtreatment, and posttreatment, as well as at 3-and 6-month follow-up. Growth curve modeling was used to analyze treatment effects on pain disability, pain intensity, health-related quality of life (physical domain), anxiety, depression, and acceptance. RESULTS: Significant improvements were seen across conditions (pretreatment to follow-up assessment) on all outcome measures. Pain disability decreased significantly in ACT relative to AR from preassessment to postassessment. A corresponding decrease in pain disability was seen in AR between postassessment and 6-month follow-up. Pain acceptance increased only in ACT, and this effect was maintained at 6-month follow-up. Approximately 20% of the participants achieved clinically significant change after treatment. Health economic analyses showed that ACT was more cost-effective than AR at post and 3-month follow-up assessment, but not at 6-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: More studies investigating moderators and mediators of change are needed. The present study is one of few that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ACT and AR and compared ACT with an established behavioral intervention, and the results provide additional support for behavioral interventions for longstanding pain.
|