Skip to content

Mindful Action for Pain

Mindful Action for Pain: An Integrated Approach to Improve Chronic Pain Function

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03800654
Acronym
MAP
Enrollment
126
Registered
2019-01-11
Start date
2019-08-28
Completion date
2024-03-29
Last updated
2026-02-17

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

Conditions

Chronic Pain

Keywords

Chronic Pain, Psychological Flexibility, Mindfulness Meditation

Brief summary

An emerging scientific model that has been applied to chronic pain is the psychological flexibility (PF) model. PF refers to the ability to behave consistently with one's values even in the face of unwanted thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations such as pain. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is the best known treatment derived from the PF model and is as effective as the gold standard Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), but falls short on achieving meaningful changes in functional improvement. Although ACT was designed to impact PF, methods from different treatment approaches are also consistent with the model. An experiential strategy that holds promise for enhancing PF is formal mindfulness meditation, a practice used to train non-judgmental awareness and attention to present-moment experiences, which has never been tested within the PF model. There is compelling theoretical and empirical rationale that the mechanisms underlying formal mindfulness meditation will bolster PF processes and thereby can be applied to facilitate functional improvement. To test this, the principal investigator, has developed a novel 8-week group-based intervention, Mindful Action for Pain (MAP), which integrates formal mindfulness meditation with experiential methods from different evidence-based treatment approaches in accordance with the PF model. MAP is designed such that daily mindfulness meditation practice is used to develop the capacity to more completely utilize strategies to address the key psychosocial barriers (e.g., pain catastrophizing) to optimal functioning. This career development award (CDA-2) project consists of two phases. Phase 1 (years 1 - 2) consists of using qualitative and quantitative methods to iteratively develop and refine MAP over the course of 4 MAP cycles (n = 20). Phase 2 (years 3 - 5) consists of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) (n = 86) of MAP vs. cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic pain (CBT-CP) in order to establish feasibility of a future large-scale trial and estimate the preliminary impact of MAP. Functional improvement will be measured by reductions in pain interference (primary clinical outcome). Further, meditation adherence will be assessed to explore dose-response relationships with functional improvement, and objective measures of physical activity (actigraphy) will be captured to explore the psychophysical impact of MAP.

Detailed description

Chronic pain, defined as persistent or episodic pain that does not resolve with treatment, affects up to 50% of Veterans, costs the nation between $560 and $635 billion dollars annually, and is associated with high rates of disability and low quality of life. According to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the goal of pain treatment is to improve physical and psychosocial functioning, emphasizing non-pharmacological approaches, such as psychosocial interventions, to target psychosocial factors that maintain disability. Unfortunately, the gold standard psychosocial intervention for chronic pain, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), does not reliably produce meaningful increases in function. An emerging scientific model that has been applied to chronic pain is the psychological flexibility (PF) model. PF refers to the ability to behave consistently with one's values even in the face of unwanted thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations such as pain. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is the best known treatment derived from the PF model and is as effective as the gold standard CBT, but still falls short on achieving meaningful changes in functional improvement. Although ACT was designed to impact PF, methods from different treatment approaches are also consistent with the model. An experiential strategy that holds promise for enhancing PF is formal mindfulness meditation, a practice used to train non-judgmental awareness and attention to present-moment experiences, which has never been tested within the PF model. There is compelling theoretical and empirical rationale that the mechanisms underlying formal mindfulness meditation will bolster PF processes and thereby can be applied to facilitate functional improvement. To test this, the principal investigator, has developed a novel 8-week group-based intervention, Mindful Action for Pain (MAP), which integrates formal mindfulness meditation with experiential methods from different evidence-based treatment approaches in accordance with the PF model. MAP is designed such that daily mindfulness meditation practice is used to develop the capacity to more completely utilize strategies to address the key psychosocial barriers (e.g., pain catastrophizing) to optimal functioning. This CDA-2 project consists of two phases. Phase 1 (years 1 - 2) consists of using qualitative and quantitative methods to iteratively develop and refine MAP over the course of 4 MAP cycles (n = 20). Phase 2 (years 3 - 5) consists of a pilot RCT (n = 86) of MAP vs. CBT for chronic pain (CBT-CP) in order to establish feasibility of a future large-scale trial and estimate the preliminary impact of MAP. Functional improvement will be measured by reductions in pain interference (primary clinical outcome). Further, meditation adherence will be assessed to explore dose-response relationships with functional improvement, and objective measures of physical activity (actigraphy) will be captured to explore the psychophysical impact of MAP. Aim 1: Fully develop MAP in a population of Veterans with chronic pain (Phase 1). Aim 2: Evaluate the feasibility of a future randomized efficacy trial of MAP vs. CBT-CP (Phase 2). Hypothesis 1: MAP and CBT-CP will be feasible to deliver, as evidenced by attainment of recruitment goals, retention rates \> 80%, and high credibility and expectancy ratings. Aim 3: Estimate the preliminary impact of MAP and CBT-CP to determine if a future efficacy trial is warranted. Examine changes in pain interference (a proxy for functional improvement and one of the most commonly measured outcomes in psychosocial intervention trials of chronic pain), pain acceptance, trait mindfulness, and pain catastrophizing, as well as patient satisfaction ratings, as indicators that MAP may be worthy of investigation in a future large-scale trial. Exploratory Aim 1: Explore the relationship between meditation adherence and treatment outcomes. There is growing evidence for a dose-response relationship between meditation practice and positive outcomes. Therefore, strategies to increase meditation adherence will be optimized (Phase 1) and the relationship between adherence as measured via daily diaries and outcomes will be assessed (Phase 2). Exploratory Aim 2: Explore objective measures of physical activity at baseline and post-intervention as a potential future index of functional outcomes.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALMindful Action for Pain

MAP integrates formal mindfulness meditation with methods from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Dialectical Behavior Therapy.

CBT-CP is the current gold standard psychosocial intervention for chronic pain and will be compared to MAP in the second arm of the study.

Sponsors

VA Office of Research and Development
Lead SponsorFED

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Intervention model description

Group Randomized Controlled Trial

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Veteran * Diagnosis of a chronic, non-terminal pain condition * Pain most days (\> 3 days/week) for at least 6 months * Average pain severity and interference with enjoyment of life and/or general activity rated \> 4/10 over the past week

Exclusion criteria

* Serious or unstable medical or psychiatric illness * (e.g., unmanaged psychosis, manic episode, or substance abuse within the past year) or psychosocial instability * (e.g., homelessness) that could compromise study participation * Active suicidal ideation or history of suicide attempt within past 3 years * Current participation in group psychotherapy for pain or any type of individual psychotherapy * Changes to professionally delivered pain or mood treatments * (e.g., no discontinuation of a treatment; no increasing the dose of medication) one month preceding the baseline assessment.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale ChangeBaseline and week 9The BPI Pain Interference subscale consists of 7-items rated on a 0 - 10 scale that measures the degree to which pain interferes with various aspects of life, including mobility, social activities, and mood. Scores are averaged with a range from 0 to 10. Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain interference (i.e., worse outcome).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)Baseline and week 9The CPAQ consists of 20-items rated on a 0 - 6 scale that measures the degree that patients have adjusted to pain as part of their identity and lifestyle. Scores range from 0 to 120. Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain acceptance (i.e., better outcome).
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)Baseline and week 9The MAAS consists of 15-items assessing present-moment attention and awareness of everyday experiences. Scores range from 1-6 with higher scores reflecting greater mindfulness (i.e., better outcome).
Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)Baseline and week 9The PCS consists of 13 items rated on 0 - 4 scale that measures the degree to which people experience an aversive orientation towards pain. Scores range from 0 - 52). Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain catastrophizing (i.e., worse outcome).

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORMatthew Herbert, PhD

VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA

Participant flow

Recruitment details

126 participants completed the informed consent procedure. However, 9 of these participants either declined or were excluded prior to assigning them to an intervention and 1 participant did not complete the baseline assessment (violating are intent-to-treat criterion). Thus, only 116 (Phase 1: n=29; Phase 2: n=87) were assigned to an intervention and completed the baseline assessment.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)
In the first arm, MAP will be fully developed. Mindful Action for Pain: MAP integrates formal mindfulness meditation with methods from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy .
29
MAP (Years 3-5)
Mindful Action for Pain: MAP integrates formal mindfulness meditation with methods from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy .
46
CBT (Years 3-5)
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain: CBT-CP is the current gold standard psychosocial intervention for chronic pain and will be compared to MAP in the second arm of the study.
41
Total116

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalMindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)MAP (Years 3-5)CBT (Years 3-5)
Age, Continuous51.40 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.2
57.28 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.92
50.83 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.21
47.88 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.62
Brief Pain Inventory - Pain Interference7.20 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.81
6.77 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.66
7.31 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.76
7.38 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.95
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
27 Participants7 Participants10 Participants10 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
88 Participants22 Participants35 Participants31 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
2 Participants0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
9 Participants1 Participants5 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
34 Participants8 Participants13 Participants13 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
5 Participants1 Participants3 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
20 Participants10 Participants6 Participants4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
45 Participants9 Participants18 Participants18 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
116 Participants29 Participants46 Participants41 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
26 Participants6 Participants10 Participants10 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
90 Participants23 Participants36 Participants31 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 290 / 460 / 41
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 290 / 460 / 41
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 290 / 460 / 41

Outcome results

Primary

Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale Change

The BPI Pain Interference subscale consists of 7-items rated on a 0 - 10 scale that measures the degree to which pain interferes with various aspects of life, including mobility, social activities, and mood. Scores are averaged with a range from 0 to 10. Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain interference (i.e., worse outcome).

Time frame: Baseline and week 9

Population: Veterans with heterogenous chronic pain

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale ChangeBaseline6.77 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.66
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale ChangePost-treatment5.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.32
MAP Group (Years 3-5)Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale ChangeBaseline7.31 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.76
MAP Group (Years 3-5)Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale ChangePost-treatment6.19 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.04
CBT Group (Years 3-5)Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale ChangeBaseline7.38 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.95
CBT Group (Years 3-5)Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale ChangePost-treatment5.63 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Secondary

Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)

The CPAQ consists of 20-items rated on a 0 - 6 scale that measures the degree that patients have adjusted to pain as part of their identity and lifestyle. Scores range from 0 to 120. Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain acceptance (i.e., better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline and week 9

Population: Veterans with heterogenous chronic pain

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)Baseline65.55 units on scaleStandard Deviation 11.54
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)Posttreatment72.78 units on scaleStandard Deviation 7.9
MAP Group (Years 3-5)Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)Baseline63.50 units on scaleStandard Deviation 10.8
MAP Group (Years 3-5)Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)Posttreatment65.23 units on scaleStandard Deviation 14.02
CBT Group (Years 3-5)Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)Baseline62.78 units on scaleStandard Deviation 9.72
CBT Group (Years 3-5)Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)Posttreatment67.03 units on scaleStandard Deviation 8.99
Secondary

Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)

The MAAS consists of 15-items assessing present-moment attention and awareness of everyday experiences. Scores range from 1-6 with higher scores reflecting greater mindfulness (i.e., better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline and week 9

Population: Veterans with heterogenous chronic pain

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)Baseline3.62 units on scaleStandard Deviation 1
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)Posttreatment3.93 units on scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
MAP Group (Years 3-5)Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)Baseline3.87 units on scaleStandard Deviation 1.07
MAP Group (Years 3-5)Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)Posttreatment3.97 units on scaleStandard Deviation 1.01
CBT Group (Years 3-5)Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)Baseline3.55 units on scaleStandard Deviation 1
CBT Group (Years 3-5)Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)Posttreatment3.63 units on scaleStandard Deviation 1.18
Secondary

Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)

The PCS consists of 13 items rated on 0 - 4 scale that measures the degree to which people experience an aversive orientation towards pain. Scores range from 0 - 52). Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain catastrophizing (i.e., worse outcome).

Time frame: Baseline and week 9

Population: Veterans with heterogenous chronic pain

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)Baseline26.86 units on scaleStandard Deviation 12.29
Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2)Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)Posttreatment21.74 units on scaleStandard Deviation 10.66
MAP Group (Years 3-5)Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)Baseline28.98 units on scaleStandard Deviation 11.31
MAP Group (Years 3-5)Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)Posttreatment22.72 units on scaleStandard Deviation 11.88
CBT Group (Years 3-5)Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)Baseline27.80 units on scaleStandard Deviation 12.25
CBT Group (Years 3-5)Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)Posttreatment21.52 units on scaleStandard Deviation 12.49
Other Pre-specified

Actigraphy

Participants will wear actiwatches for two 7-day periods at baseline and week 9 to measure average physical activity counts.

Time frame: Baseline and week 9

Other Pre-specified

Meditation Diaries

On these diaries, participants report the duration of meditation practice and what kind of practice (e.g., breathing, body scan).

Time frame: Weekly during treatment (i.e., weeks 1 - 8) and week 9

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 18, 2026