Chronic Pain in Older Adults: A Controlled Pilot Trial of a Brief Cognitive-Behavioural Group Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a common condition among older adults. While cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) has been tested in numerous studies on adults and children there are fewer studies on older persons. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of a six-session CBT group treatment for older persons with chronic pain. As a secondary aim we investigated whether treatment credibility was associated with outcome. METHOD: We included 21 persons (mean age = 72.0 years) who were randomly allocated to either a waitlist condition or treatment consisting of applied relaxation, with the addition of problem solving, assertiveness, communication strategies, sleep management, and relapse prevention. RESULTS: Few statistically significant effects were found on measures of pain, mood, anxiety, and quality of life; however, a significant treatment effect with a between group effect size of d = 1.0 was observed with respect to perceived ability to function despite the discomfort of pain. CONCLUSION: The study provides some preliminary support for the use of group-based CBT with a focus on applied relaxation for older adults with chronic 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".