A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of an acceptance and commitment therapy–based bibliotherapy intervention among adults living with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic pain has a significant impact on the physical and psychological functioning of those living with this condition. It is now recognized that acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is an effective intervention in managing chronic pain; however, several barriers limit its accessibility.Aims The current study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an 8-week bibliotherapy-type self-administered psychological intervention with minimal therapeutic contact, based on ACT, in the management of chronic pain.Methods This was a randomized controlled trial with three measurement periods (pretest, posttest, and 3 months after the intervention; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03924687). A total of 140 adults with chronic pain were randomly assigned to an ACT self-help condition or a wait-list control condition.Results Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) models showed statistically significant differences between pretest and posttest in terms of pain-related disability (main variable), depression (secondary variable), pain-related acceptance, and psychological inflexibility (d = 0.46–0.88) in favor of the ACT self-help condition. At the 3-month follow-up, these differences were maintained and nearly 54% of participants reported an overall improvement of their physical and mental health.Conclusion These results suggest that a psychological intervention self-administered through ACT bibliotherapy with minimal therapeutic support can improve the physical and emotional functioning of adults from the community who live 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".