Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

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.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help