The Effectiveness of Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) on Decreasing Pain, Depression and Anxiety of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Within chronic pains, back pain has the highest percentage. Psychological factors play an important role in the establishment and continuation of physical disability as well as in functional limitation in patients with chronic low back pain. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) on decreasing the pain, depression and anxiety of patients with chronic low back pain. Methods: This study was an experimental study by pretest- posttest design with a control group. Thirty patients were selected by random sampling among patients with chronic low back pain who referred to Imam Reza and Behsat clinics in Rasht from 2012 to 2013. The study participants were placed in three groups (two experimental and one control group). MBCT (first experimental group) and CBT (second experimental group) were administered in 8 sessions for 90 minutes. The short-form McGill pain Questionnaire (Dworkin et al, 2009) and depression, anxiety, stress scale (Lavibond & Lovibond, 1995) were used for collecting the data in pre-test and post-test stages. One way and multivariate Analysis of Variance were used for analyzing the data. Results: The results showed that there was no meaningful difference between two experimental groups in the mean score of pain, depression, anxiety, though a meaningful difference was observed between these two groups and the control group in regard to above variables. Conclusion: The results support the effectiveness of MBCT and CBT in decreasing pain, depression and anxiety. Therefore, taking account of these two therapeutic methods is very important for patients with chronic low back pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".