The Effect of a Brief Physician-Delivered Neurobiologically Oriented, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (Brief-CBT) Intervention on Chronic Pain Acceptance in Youth with Chronic Pain—A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Stollery Children’s Chronic Pain Clinic, new referrals are assessed by an interdisciplinary team. The final part of the intake assessment typically involves an explanation and compassionate validation of the etiology of chronic pain and an invitation to the youth to attend the group outpatient Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) program, called Pain 101, or to individual outpatient CBT. It was hypothesized that a brief physician-delivered CBT (brief-CBT) intervention at first point of contact improves subsequent pain acceptance. Using a randomized double blinded methodology, 26 participants received a standard intake assessment and 26 the standard assessment plus the brief-CBT intervention. Measures were taken at three points: pre and post-intake assessment and after Pain 101 or individual CBT (or day 30 post-assessment for those attending neither). The primary outcome measure was the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire—Adolescent version (CPAQ-A). Comparing pre and post-intake measures, there was a significant (p = 0.002) increase in the CPAQ-A scores—four-fold more in the brief-CBT intervention group (p = 0.045). Anxiety (RCADS-T Score) was significantly reduced post-intake and significantly more reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.024). CPAQ-A scores were significantly increased (p < 0.001) (N = 28) and anxiety (RCADs-T) was significantly reduced by the end of Pain 101 (p < 0.003) (N = 29) as was fear of pain as measured by the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (p = 0.021). A physician-delivered brief-CBT intervention significantly and meaningfully increased CPAQ-A scores and reduced anxiety in youth with chronic pain. Furthermore, CBT through Pain 101 is effective at increasing acceptance, as well as reducing anxiety and fear of movement.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".