Skip to content

The Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health Study

The MAintaining MusculOskeleTal Health (MAmMOTH) Study

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02668003
Acronym
MAmMOTH
Enrollment
1002
Registered
2016-01-29
Start date
2016-05-31
Completion date
2019-06-30
Last updated
2021-08-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Widespread Chronic Pain

Keywords

Prevention trial, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, CWP, Chronic widespread pain, RCT, Fibromyalgia, Prevention

Brief summary

It is known from many studies that when patients have developed chronic widespread pain (CWP) or fibromyalgia that managing such symptoms is extremely challenging for both doctors and patients. The investigators have shown in a recently completed study funded by Arthritis Research UK that a course of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy delivered by telephone (tCBT) or an exercise regime can substantially improve the chances of the symptoms improving. The investigators now plan to offer this therapy to patients who are at a high risk of developing CWP (but who have not developed it yet) to see whether its onset can be prevented.

Detailed description

Chronic widespread pain (CWP), the cardinal feature of fibromyalgia, is associated with lost work productivity, psychological ill health, and poor quality of life. It is one of the most common reasons for referral to a rheumatologist. The cost of CWP is high in terms of both individual, societal and health costs: for example, in the United States, mean per-patient costs (including pain and non-pain-related medication, physician consultations, tests and procedures, and emergency department visits) in the 6 months following a new diagnosis of fibromyalgia have been reported as $3481, comparable to patients with rheumatoid arthritis but resulting in worse quality of life. Current guidelines recommend pharmacological, physical, and psychological therapies although the importance attributed to individual therapies is inconsistent. There is good evidence for musculoskeletal pain conditions generally that the longer the duration of symptoms, the less likely that symptoms are to improve, including with specific interventions. This is particularly so for CWP which, once developed, is challenging to manage and effect improvement. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT) of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) for patients with fibromyalgia concluded that CBT improves coping with pain, reduces depressed mood and healthcare-seeking behaviour in such patients. The delivery of CBT by telephone has been shown to be effective, acceptable and accessible. The MUSICIAN study, which the investigators have recently concluded, tested telephone delivered CBT (tCBT) and/or exercise for patients with chronic widespread pain consulting to their GP. Three months after the end of therapy, both interventions resulted in significantly better primary outcome measures (patient global health) than treatment as usual, but there was no significant additional benefit of receiving both interventions. Recent analyses have demonstrated these benefits are maintained 2 years after the end of therapy. The investigators have conducted a comprehensive literature review with the aim of identifying randomised trials which had the aim of preventing the onset either of CWP or fibromyalgia. This review did not identify any such published trials. Further, a search of 11 international clinical trials registers/databases (including US, UK, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Japan), undertaken in Autumn 2013 did not identify any ongoing trial with the aim of preventing the onset of CWP (or fibromyalgia). There are several reasons why it may be desirable to try to prevent CWP onset, namely that the majority of CWP patients do not have important symptom improvement with current management (even within trials). Prediction models from epidemiological studies have been developed to identify high risk patients, which makes such an approach feasible. Research using the General Practice Research Database has demonstrated that prior to receiving a diagnosis of fibromyalgia in primary care, persons have a long-term prior history of consultation with symptoms. Although this will be the first prevention trial in this area, the concept of prevention using CBT has been addressed in musculoskeletal disorders with respect to intervention in neck pain and low back pain before people become patients and in mental disorders. The investigators have conducted prospective epidemiological studies which have demonstrated that it is possible to identify high risk groups. In the first study, a high risk group for CWP onset was identified on the basis of two factors: somatic awareness (using the Somatic Symptom Scale) and illness behaviour (using the Illness Behaviour Score). This was replicated in a second study conducted by the applicants. These aetiological models excluded pain and therefore the investigators have re-analysed data from the latter study (also considering pain status) to identify the best predictors of onset and which results in a model more suitable for use in prevention studies. The resulting at risk model requires regional pain and two of the following: maladaptive behavioural response to illness), a high number of somatic symptoms, and sleep disturbance. In the second validation study, from a population of 2,374 persons without CWP, 653 satisfied the definition of high risk of CWP of whom 139 had developed CWP twelve months later (that is a Positive Predictive value of 21.3%). Amongst persons not deemed to be at high risk (n=1721), 77 developed CWP which is a Negative Predictive Value of 95.5%. The investigators have previously shown short and long-term effectiveness of tCBT for CWP (compared to usual care). Specifically this demonstrated sustained improvement in patient global assessment of change, reduced psychological distress, fear of movement and reliance on passive coping styles. Secondly the investigators have developed and refined statistical models which identify persons at high risk for the future development of CWP. The investigators therefore now propose a study to test whether tCBT can reduce the risk of CWP onset amongst those at high risk. Three health boards in Scotland will be research sites for the study. The three health boards are NHS Grampian, NHS Highland, and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The study will require the involvement of 7 or 8 equivalent general practices. The investigators will mail a randomly selected sample of adults aged 25 years and over registered with participating general practices in the study areas. The Scottish Primary Care Research Network (SPCRN) will be involved in recruitment of patients to this study from primary care. SPCRN staff provide GP practices with an expert service to undertake searches of their electronic databases to identify a random sample of potentially eligible patients and prepare the ethically approved letters to be sent out. Searches are undertaken at each GP practice before the screening survey questionnaires are sent out by Health Informatics Centre Services in Dundee on behalf of the practice. Patients will return completed survey questionnaires to the research team at the University of Aberdeen where responses will be assessed by the research team for eligibility and patients sent invitation letters if eligible. The screening questionnaire will determine whether a) respondents meet the study eligibility criteria and b) respondents would be willing to be contacted again regarding a treatment trial for musculoskeletal health. The questionnaire will include: * Pain assessed by specific questions on the experience of pain, consultation and body manikins (which will provide site and also allow us to exclude those who already have chronic widespread pain). * Illness Behaviour Scale * Somatic Symptoms Scale (excluding pain items) * Sleep Problem Scale * Quality of Life and Wellbeing * General Health Questionnaire * Chalder Fatigue Scale A list of eligible patients will be provided to the general practitioner in advance, with the option of indicating any as unsuitable for the study. Patients would then be sent information about the study and subsequently contacted by a member of the research team by telephone and, if appropriate, consented and recruited into the trial. Included in the mailing to eligible patients will be an information sheet, consent form, and a best-time-to-call slip. Once a patient has returned a signed consent form and best-time-to-call slip, a member of the research team will phone them. The researcher will read out from a script giving information about the study, and the patient will have the opportunity then to ask questions about the study. If the patient consents to participate the participant will be recruited to the study and randomised to one of the arms of the trial. Follow-up questionnaires will be mailed to participants at 3, 12 and 24 months after the treatment start date (for participants in the active treatment group) or dummy treatment start date (for those in usual care). Instruments included in the follow-up questionnaires will be the same as in the screening survey questionnaire. Additionally, follow-up questionnaires will include the Patient Global Impression of Change, and questions on health care usage. Participants will have the option to withdraw from the treatment or the study at any time. Those withdrawing from the treatment will continue to be sent follow-up questionnaires unless the participant requests not to receive them. Failure of any participant to complete a follow-up questionnaire at any particular timepoint will not be counted as a withdrawal unless the participant requests not to receive any further follow-ups. Our previous longitudinal study of onset of CWP (and subsequent replication) has suggested that 21% of high risk persons identified will develop CWP over the course of the next twelve months. Our previous data is based on persons with pain and at least 2 out of 3 other risk factors. There are no published studies of prevention of CWP on which to base our measure of effect. However in the MUSICIAN study some subjects, although reporting CWP at the screening survey, no longer had CWP at the enrolment interview. These participants were however still eligible to take part, provided the participant had regional pain. Therefore those subjects with regional pain provide a sub-population on which to base the likely effects of the tCBT. Amongst such subjects, those who received tCBT had a reduced odds of having CWP at the end of the study OR 0.5 95% CI (0.2-1.4) compared to those in usual care. Thus the study is powered on the ability of the current study to reduce the onset of CWP from 21% to 12%, with 90% power and a 5% significance level. The investigators further assume, based on prior data, that 75% of persons allocated to the tCBT arm will be adherent to the intervention, and that 80% of all subjects will return the follow-up questionnaires to assess outcome. Accordingly the investigators require 473 subjects per arm that is a total of 946 subjects recruited. In MUSICIAN exactly 50% of those found eligible and willing to consider taking part ultimately were randomised. A previous trial of a cognitive-behavioural intervention to prevent chronic pain found that 36% of patients identified as eligible ended up being recruited to the study. If 80% of eligible patients agreed to be contacted about taking part, this equates to 45% of those eligible and willing to consider taking part being randomised - higher numbers for a clinical trial of CWP reflect the fact that this is a prevention trial rather than a treatment trial and may be less attractive to potential participants. Thus the investigators aim to find a total of 2102 subjects who are eligible and willing to consider taking part. Assuming a participation rate to the survey of 30%, that 1 in 4 people will be at risk, and (using data from MUSICIAN) that 80% of people who return a questionnaire agree to consider taking part, the investigators require to survey 35 037 persons. A pre-defined statistical analysis plan will be developed and signed off by the trial steering committee before undertaking any data analysis. Comparison between arms will be on an intention-to-treat basis (main analysis) with a per protocol sensitivity analysis. Characteristics of the study participants in the two treatment arms will be described using simple summary statistics. Descriptive statistics will include mean and standard deviation for normally distributed continuous data, median and inter-quartile range for skewed continuous data and count and percentage for categorical data. No formal statistical comparisons will be made between baseline characteristics. Primary and secondary outcomes will be described at the three follow-up times: 3, 12 and 24 months, using appropriate summary statistics.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALCognitive Behavioural Therapy

The CBT intervention, delivered by telephone, will consist of an initial assessment, 6 weekly sessions, and then booster sessions at 3 and 6 months. The intervention will be delivered by trained and accredited therapists. Participants will be supported by a self-management CBT manual. There will be a patient-centred assessment by the therapist for problem identification, risk assessment and development of a shared formulation of the current health problem. The sessions will involve education about musculoskeletal pain, somatic symptoms and specific CBT techniques such as pacing of activity, behavioural activation, diary keeping, identifying and challenging negative and unhelpful thinking patterns and the development of a longer term management plan.

Sponsors

University of Aberdeen
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
25 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* A 'high-risk' profile for developing CWP as identified on the screening survey, i.e.: * Have pain for which the patient has sought consultation to primary care in the last 6 months * Any 2 of the following: Illness Behaviour Score \> 4; Somatic Symptom Score \> 2; Sleep Problem Score \> 4 * Access to a land-line telephone or mobile telephone * Ability to understand English sufficiently to participate in the intervention * Ability to give informed consent * Aged 25 years or over

Exclusion criteria

* Meeting American College of Rheumatology definition of CWP in the 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia (as assessed by the screening questionnaire) * Medical conditions which would make the proposed intervention unsuitable (e.g. cognitive ability)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Development of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire12 months after treatment startThe development of new chronic widespread pain, as defined by ACR 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia and assessed by questionnaire, at follow-up will be compared between participants in the two treatment arms. A participant was counted as having chronic widespread pain if they said they had pain in the last month that had lasted a day or more, indicated on a paper manikin that the pain that was on both the left and right hand sides, and above and below the waist, and in the axial skeleton, and answered that they had this pain for more than 3 months. If they did not have pain that was that above and below the waist and on the left and right hand sides, and in the axial skeleton, or they did not say they had the pain for more than 3 months, then they did not have chronic widespread pain.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Illness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale3 months after treatment startIllness Behaviour Scale, which is comprised of the 'Treatment experiences' and 'Effects of symptoms' sub-scales of the Illness Attitudes Scales. The range of scores is from 0 (best) to 24 (worst).
Somatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale3 months after treatment startSomatic Symptoms Scale, which measures the presence or absence of 5 somatic symptoms, with a range of 0 (best) to 5 (worst) somatic symptoms.
Sleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale3 months after treatment startSleep Problem Scale
EQ-5D3 months after treatment startThe EQ-5D is a standardised measure of health-related quality of life, with a range of values from 0 (worst) to 1 (best).
Wellbeing3 months after treatment startICECAP-A (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults) is a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults, with a range of scores from -0.001 (worst) to 1 (best).
Pain Assessed by Questionnaire3 months after treatment startAssessed by follow-up questionnaire. Participants were asked if they had pain in the last month that had lasted a day or more and could answer 'yes' or 'no.
Patient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item Scale3 months after treatment start7-item scale from very much worse to very much better
Fatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale3 months after treatment startChalder Fatigue Scale has a range of 0 (best) to 33 (worst).
Health Care Usage Assessed by Questionnaire24 months after treatment startHealth care usage will be assessed by questionnaire at 3 months, 12 months and 24 months after treatment start to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Only the cost of health care usage for the 24 month period after treatment start was calculated using this data.
Development of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire3 months after treatment startThe development of new chronic widespread pain, as defined by ACR 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia and assessed by questionnaire, at follow-up will be compared between participants in the two treatment arms. A participant was counted as having chronic widespread pain if they said they had pain in the last month that had lasted a day or more, indicated on a paper manikin that the pain that was on both the left and right hand sides, and above and below the waist, and in the axial skeleton, and answered that they had this pain for more than 3 months. If they did not have pain that was that above and below the waist and on the left and right hand sides, and in the axial skeleton, or they did not say they had the pain for more than 3 months, then they did not have chronic widespread pain.
Psychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-123 months after treatment startGHQ-12 (12-item General Health Questionnaire) has a range of 0 (best) to 12 (worst).

Countries

United Kingdom

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
Brief Cognitive Behavioural Therapy delivered by telephone Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: The CBT intervention, delivered by telephone, will consist of an initial assessment, 6 weekly sessions, and then booster sessions at 3 and 6 months. The intervention will be delivered by trained and accredited therapists. Participants will be supported by a self-management CBT manual. There will be a patient-centred assessment by the therapist for problem identification, risk assessment and development of a shared formulation of the current health problem. The sessions will involve education about musculoskeletal pain, somatic symptoms and specific CBT techniques such as pacing of activity, behavioural activation, diary keeping, identifying and challenging negative and unhelpful thinking patterns and the development of a longer term management plan.
501
Treatment as Usual
The group allocated to usual care will receive no additional intervention - this will reflect the fact there is no specific intervention provided to patients currently for the prevention of CWP. Participants in this group will receive usual care and there will be no restriction on what this can involve. CBT is not readily available within the NHS and is generally restricted to persons who have developed specific conditions rather than persons at risk of those conditions.
501
Total1,002

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicCognitive Behavioural TherapyTreatment as UsualTotal
Age, Continuous58.8 years59.5 years59.3 years
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
209 Participants204 Participants413 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
291 Participants292 Participants583 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
3 / 5019 / 501
other
Total, other adverse events
3 / 5010 / 501
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 5010 / 501

Outcome results

Primary

Development of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire

The development of new chronic widespread pain, as defined by ACR 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia and assessed by questionnaire, at follow-up will be compared between participants in the two treatment arms. A participant was counted as having chronic widespread pain if they said they had pain in the last month that had lasted a day or more, indicated on a paper manikin that the pain that was on both the left and right hand sides, and above and below the waist, and in the axial skeleton, and answered that they had this pain for more than 3 months. If they did not have pain that was that above and below the waist and on the left and right hand sides, and in the axial skeleton, or they did not say they had the pain for more than 3 months, then they did not have chronic widespread pain.

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyDevelopment of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire69 Participants
Treatment as UsualDevelopment of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire77 Participants
Secondary

Development of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire

The development of new chronic widespread pain, as defined by ACR 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia and assessed by questionnaire, at follow-up will be compared between participants in the two treatment arms. A participant was counted as having chronic widespread pain if they said they had pain in the last month that had lasted a day or more, indicated on a paper manikin that the pain that was on both the left and right hand sides, and above and below the waist, and in the axial skeleton, and answered that they had this pain for more than 3 months. If they did not have pain that was that above and below the waist and on the left and right hand sides, and in the axial skeleton, or they did not say they had the pain for more than 3 months, then they did not have chronic widespread pain.

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyDevelopment of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire78 Participants
Treatment as UsualDevelopment of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire101 Participants
Secondary

Development of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire

The development of new chronic widespread pain, as defined by ACR 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia and assessed by questionnaire, at follow-up will be compared between participants in the two treatment arms. A participant was counted as having chronic widespread pain if they said they had pain in the last month that had lasted a day or more, indicated on a paper manikin that the pain that was on both the left and right hand sides, and above and below the waist, and in the axial skeleton, and answered that they had this pain for more than 3 months. If they did not have pain that was that above and below the waist and on the left and right hand sides, and in the axial skeleton, or they did not say they had the pain for more than 3 months, then they did not have chronic widespread pain.

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyDevelopment of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire68 Participants
Treatment as UsualDevelopment of Chronic Widespread Pain Assessed by Questionnaire75 Participants
Secondary

EQ-5D

The EQ-5D is a standardised measure of health-related quality of life, with a range of values from 0 (worst) to 1 (best).

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyEQ-5D0.74 score on a scale
Treatment as UsualEQ-5D0.74 score on a scale
Secondary

EQ-5D

The EQ-5D is a standardised measure of health-related quality of life, with a range of values from 0 (worst) to 1 (best).

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyEQ-5D0.74 score on a scale
Treatment as UsualEQ-5D0.74 score on a scale
Secondary

EQ-5D

The EQ-5D is a standardised measure of health-related quality of life, with a range of values from 0 (worst) to 1 (best).

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyEQ-5D0.74 score on a scale
Treatment as UsualEQ-5D0.74 score on a scale
Secondary

Fatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale

Chalder Fatigue Scale has a range of 0 (best) to 33 (worst).

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyFatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale12.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.2
Treatment as UsualFatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale13.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.2
Secondary

Fatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale

Chalder Fatigue Scale has a range of 0 (best) to 33 (worst).

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyFatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale13.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.3
Treatment as UsualFatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale13.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.4
Secondary

Fatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale

Chalder Fatigue Scale has a range of 0 (best) to 33 (worst).

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyFatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale12.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.5
Treatment as UsualFatigue Assessed by Chalder Fatigue Scale13.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.4
Secondary

Health Care Usage Assessed by Questionnaire

Health care usage will be assessed by questionnaire at 3 months, 12 months and 24 months after treatment start to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Only the cost of health care usage for the 24 month period after treatment start was calculated using this data.

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyHealth Care Usage Assessed by Questionnaire3094.68 £
Treatment as UsualHealth Care Usage Assessed by Questionnaire3052.38 £
Secondary

Illness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale

Illness Behaviour Scale, which is comprised of the 'Treatment experiences' and 'Effects of symptoms' sub-scales of the Illness Attitudes Scales. The range of scores is from 0 (best) to 24 (worst).

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyIllness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale7.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.14
Treatment as UsualIllness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale8.95 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.18
Secondary

Illness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale

Illness Behaviour Scale, which is comprised of the 'Treatment experiences' and 'Effects of symptoms' sub-scales of the Illness Attitudes Scales. The range of scores is from 0 (best) to 24 (worst).

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyIllness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale8.96 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.99
Treatment as UsualIllness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale9.21 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.86
Secondary

Illness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale

Illness Behaviour Scale, which is comprised of the 'Treatment experiences' and 'Effects of symptoms' sub-scales of the Illness Attitudes Scales. The range of scores is from 0 (best) to 24 (worst).

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyIllness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale8.21 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.04
Treatment as UsualIllness Behaviour Assessed by Illness Behaviour Scale8.96 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.19
Secondary

Pain Assessed by Questionnaire

Assessed by follow-up questionnaire. Participants were asked if they had pain in the last month that had lasted a day or more and could answer 'yes' or 'no.

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPain Assessed by Questionnaire308 Participants
Treatment as UsualPain Assessed by Questionnaire384 Participants
Secondary

Pain Assessed by Questionnaire

Assessed by follow-up questionnaire. Participants were asked if they had pain in the last month that lasted a day or more, and could answer 'yes' or 'no'.

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPain Assessed by Questionnaire305 Participants
Treatment as UsualPain Assessed by Questionnaire376 Participants
Secondary

Pain Assessed by Questionnaire

Assessed by follow-up questionnaire. Participants were asked if they had pain in the last month that lasted a day or more, and could answer 'yes' or 'no'.

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPain Assessed by Questionnaire305 Participants
Treatment as UsualPain Assessed by Questionnaire373 Participants
Secondary

Patient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item Scale

7-item scale from very much worse to very much better

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much worse0 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleNo change100 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch better76 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little worse45 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much better14 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch worse11 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little better132 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much worse2 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much better15 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch better48 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little better91 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleNo change165 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little worse98 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch worse23 Participants
Secondary

Patient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item Scale

7-item scale from very much worse to very much better

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little better90 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little worse65 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch better88 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch worse18 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleNo change83 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much worse3 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much better24 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much worse3 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much better15 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch better59 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little better84 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleNo change126 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little worse119 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch worse23 Participants
Secondary

Patient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item Scale

7-item scale from very much worse to very much better

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little better132 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little worse45 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch better76 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch worse11 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleNo change100 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much worse0 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much better14 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much worse2 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleVery much better15 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch better48 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little better91 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleNo change165 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleA little worse98 Participants
Treatment as UsualPatient Global Impression of Change Assessed by 7-item ScaleMuch worse23 Participants
Secondary

Psychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12

GHQ-12 (12-item General Health Questionnaire) has a range of 0 (best) to 12 (worst).

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-120224 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12150 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-122-565 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-126-1235 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-126-1273 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-120207 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-122-596 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12163 Participants
Secondary

Psychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12

GHQ-12 (12-item General Health Questionnaire) has a range of 0 (best) to 12 (worst).

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-120201 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12159 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-122-568 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-126-1241 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-126-1263 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-120202 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-122-5113 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12154 Participants
Secondary

Psychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12

GHQ-12 (12-item General Health Questionnaire) has a range of 0 (best) to 12 (worst).

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-120168 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12136 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-122-567 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-126-1239 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-126-1265 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-120178 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-122-591 Participants
Treatment as UsualPsychological Distress Assessed by GHQ-12142 Participants
Secondary

Sleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale

Sleep Problem Scale

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale8.54 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.99
Treatment as UsualSleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale9.16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.08
Secondary

Sleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale

Sleep Problem Scale, with a range of 0 (best) to 20 (worst).

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale8.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.89
Treatment as UsualSleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale9.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.16
Secondary

Sleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale

Sleep Problem Scale, with a range of 0 (best) to 20 (worst).

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale8.45 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.3
Treatment as UsualSleep Problems Assessed by Sleep Problem Scale9.06 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5
Secondary

Somatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale

Somatic Symptoms Scale, which measures the presence or absence of 5 somatic symptoms, with a range of 0 (best) to 5 (worst) somatic symptoms.

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale0184 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale182 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale2-544 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale0219 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale2-568 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale190 Participants
Secondary

Somatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale

Somatic Symptoms Scale, which measures the presence or absence of 5 somatic symptoms, with a range of 0 (best) to 5 (worst) somatic symptoms.

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale0210 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale1103 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale2-559 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale0228 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale1123 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale2-581 Participants
Secondary

Somatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale

Somatic Symptoms Scale, which measures the presence or absence of 5 somatic symptoms, with a range of 0 (best) to 5 (worst) somatic symptoms.

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale0224 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale196 Participants
Cognitive Behavioural TherapySomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale2-559 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale0239 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale1127 Participants
Treatment as UsualSomatic Symptom Reporting Assessed by Somatic Symptoms Scale2-576 Participants
Secondary

Wellbeing

ICECAP-A (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults) is a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults, with a range of scores from -0.001 (worst) to 1 (best).

Time frame: 3 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyWellbeing0.89 score on a scale
Treatment as UsualWellbeing0.89 score on a scale
Secondary

Wellbeing

ICECAP-A (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults) is a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults, with a range of scores from -0.001 (worst) to 1 (best).

Time frame: 12 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyWellbeing0.91 score on a scale
Treatment as UsualWellbeing0.89 score on a scale
Secondary

Wellbeing

ICECAP-A (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults) is a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults, with a range of scores from -0.001 (worst) to 1 (best).

Time frame: 24 months after treatment start

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Cognitive Behavioural TherapyWellbeing0.91 score on a scale
Treatment as UsualWellbeing0.89 score on a scale

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 13, 2026