Chronic Pain
Conditions
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
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
Study design
Intervention model description
Group Randomized Controlled Trial
Eligibility
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
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale Change | Baseline and week 9 | 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). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) | Baseline and week 9 | 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). |
| Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) | Baseline and week 9 | 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). |
| Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | Baseline and week 9 | 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). |
Countries
United States
Contacts
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
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Total | 116 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Total | Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | MAP (Years 3-5) | CBT (Years 3-5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 51.40 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 Interference | 7.20 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 Participants | 7 Participants | 10 Participants | 10 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 88 Participants | 22 Participants | 35 Participants | 31 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 9 Participants | 1 Participants | 5 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 34 Participants | 8 Participants | 13 Participants | 13 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 5 Participants | 1 Participants | 3 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 20 Participants | 10 Participants | 6 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 45 Participants | 9 Participants | 18 Participants | 18 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 116 Participants | 29 Participants | 46 Participants | 41 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 26 Participants | 6 Participants | 10 Participants | 10 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 90 Participants | 23 Participants | 36 Participants | 31 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 29 | 0 / 46 | 0 / 41 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 29 | 0 / 46 | 0 / 41 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 29 | 0 / 46 | 0 / 41 |
Outcome results
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale Change | Baseline | 6.77 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.66 |
| Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale Change | Post-treatment | 5.40 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.32 |
| MAP Group (Years 3-5) | Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale Change | Baseline | 7.31 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.76 |
| MAP Group (Years 3-5) | Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale Change | Post-treatment | 6.19 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.04 |
| CBT Group (Years 3-5) | Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale Change | Baseline | 7.38 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.95 |
| CBT Group (Years 3-5) | Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference Subscale Change | Post-treatment | 5.63 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.2 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) | Baseline | 65.55 units on scale | Standard Deviation 11.54 |
| Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) | Posttreatment | 72.78 units on scale | Standard Deviation 7.9 |
| MAP Group (Years 3-5) | Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) | Baseline | 63.50 units on scale | Standard Deviation 10.8 |
| MAP Group (Years 3-5) | Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) | Posttreatment | 65.23 units on scale | Standard Deviation 14.02 |
| CBT Group (Years 3-5) | Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) | Baseline | 62.78 units on scale | Standard Deviation 9.72 |
| CBT Group (Years 3-5) | Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) | Posttreatment | 67.03 units on scale | Standard Deviation 8.99 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) | Baseline | 3.62 units on scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) | Posttreatment | 3.93 units on scale | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
| MAP Group (Years 3-5) | Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) | Baseline | 3.87 units on scale | Standard Deviation 1.07 |
| MAP Group (Years 3-5) | Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) | Posttreatment | 3.97 units on scale | Standard Deviation 1.01 |
| CBT Group (Years 3-5) | Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) | Baseline | 3.55 units on scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| CBT Group (Years 3-5) | Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) | Posttreatment | 3.63 units on scale | Standard Deviation 1.18 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | Baseline | 26.86 units on scale | Standard Deviation 12.29 |
| Mindful Action for Pain (MAP) Development (Years 1-2) | Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | Posttreatment | 21.74 units on scale | Standard Deviation 10.66 |
| MAP Group (Years 3-5) | Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | Baseline | 28.98 units on scale | Standard Deviation 11.31 |
| MAP Group (Years 3-5) | Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | Posttreatment | 22.72 units on scale | Standard Deviation 11.88 |
| CBT Group (Years 3-5) | Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | Baseline | 27.80 units on scale | Standard Deviation 12.25 |
| CBT Group (Years 3-5) | Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) | Posttreatment | 21.52 units on scale | Standard Deviation 12.49 |
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
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