A Prospective Examination of Acceptance at a CBT-based Interdisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims/Objectives: Acceptance of chronic pain is related to active patient engagement in valued aspects of life. This study sought to prospectively evaluate acceptance and patient functioning in a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) -based chronic pain management program (CPMP). Methods: Participants in this study were 184 consecutive adult patients with heterogeneous pain admitted to the interdisciplinary four-week Chronic Pain Management Program (CPMP) who completed self-report questionnaires at admission and discharge. Measures examined pain perception, psychological/emotional and social aspects of patient experience with chronic pain. Acceptance was evaluated by the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ, McCracken et al., 2004). Results: Patients showed all-round improvement after program completion. Consistent with other studies, higher acceptance scores at admission were associated with more overall positive change at discharge. In addition, greater increase in acceptance scores at discharge was also associated with greater improvement in other variables. However, no significant change was shown in the Pain Willingness subscale of the CPAQ. Discussion: This study provides a new understanding of the relationship of acceptance of chronic pain with patient functioning in a CBT-oriented pain management program. Results suggest that engaging in activity regardless of pain is an important program goal. This is directly measured by the Activity Engagement component of the CPAQ, which increases following participation in a CBT-based CPMP. Study findings also differ from some previous research and suggest that Pain Willingness may be a poor predictor of patient functioning. Limitations: Results were obtained from patients at an interdisciplinary program and may not be generalized to the entire chronic pain population. Also, these results only demonstrate associations between acceptance and other variables, not causality. In addition, patients in this study served as their own controls (admission-discharge) thus the study lacks a true control group. Conclusion: This study extends previous research by contributing needed prospective data on the relationship between acceptance and patient functioning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".