The Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on Pain Acceptance and Pain Perception in Patients with Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Neuropathic pain is a complex phenomenon in patients with diabetes. These patients have many problems, such as psychological problems, high-level pain perception, and pain acceptance. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy on pain acceptance and pain perception in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: This study was performed according to the clinical trial method. The sample size was 50 participants. In this study, participants were divided into interventional and control groups. According to the diagnosis of neurologists, all participants received conventional medications to manage neuropathic pain. The intervention group received acceptance and commitment therapy for eight sessions. The results in the three phases of pre-test, post-test, and follow-up were evaluated. After completing the study, to comply with ethical standards, the control group received psycho-education. The tools used were the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ). Statistical analysis includes mean, standard deviation, and repeated-measures (ANOVA) conducted by SPSS software version 22. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that in the post-test and follow-up phases, acceptance and commitment therapy could improve pain acceptance and reduce pain perception in the intervention group compared to the control group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The results indicated that acceptance and commitment therapy could be used as a psychological intervention besides pharmacotherapy to improve pain acceptance and reduce pain perception in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20180205038630N4).
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it