Improving the Multidisciplinary Treatment of Chronic Pain by Stimulating Body Awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of methodological flaws and a lack of theoretical foundation of body awareness (BA) in previous effect studies of interventions directed to stimulate BA, it is impossible to attribute treatment effects to this specific component of a multidisciplinary treatment. Therefore, this study evaluated short-term and long-term effects of a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program with and without psychomotor therapy (PMT), which focused on BA (measured by the scale of body connection) as a primary target of intervention. METHODS: Ninety-four patients clustered in 20 treatment groups were cluster randomized, using a biased-coin design, to multidisciplinary treatment as usual with or without PMT. Outcome variables were health-related quality of life, disability, and depression. BA, catastrophizing, and self-efficacy were measured as potential process variables. Assessments were performed at baseline, directly after treatment, and at 3, 6, and 12 month follow-ups. The data were analyzed by linear mixed-model analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Data of all 94 patients were used for analyses. After treatment, significant differences favoring PMT were found between conditions on depression (regression coefficient [RC]=-5.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.81 to -1.21), BA (RC=0.23; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.42) and catastrophizing (RC=-4.76; 95% CI, -8.03 to -1.48). These differences were no longer significant for depression at the 3-month follow-up and for catastrophizing at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: No clinical meaningful differences were found between treatment conditions in the primary outcome measures health-related quality of life and disability. However, this is the first long-term RCT that has shown that PMT improves BA in patients with chronic pain and shows good effect size and a significant decrease for catastrophizing.
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 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".