The Effectiveness of Mindful Hypnotherapy on Psychological Inflexibility, Pain Acceptance, Headache Disability and Intensity in Females with Chronic Migraine Headache: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was a randomized controlled design and examined the feasibility and effectiveness of mindful hypnotherapy on psychological inflexibility, pain acceptance, headache disability, and headache intensity in patients with chronic migraine headaches. The sample consisted of 38 females with chronic migraine who were randomly assigned to mindful hypnotherapy and medical treatment as usual groups. Psychological inflexibility pain scale (PIPS), chronic pain acceptance questionnaire-revised (CPAQ-R), headache disability inventory (HDI), diary scale for headache, and short-form McGill pain questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2) were administered at baseline and post-treatment in both groups. The psychological inflexibility mean (SD) score was 81.00 (12.15) at baseline, which significantly decreased to 53.28 (17.06) after the intervention (p < 0.001). Additionally, the mean (SD) score of the pain acceptance was 46.44 (11.16), which significantly increased to 73.61 (15.65) in post-intervention (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the mean (SD) score of headache disability was 73.55 (19.48), which significantly decreased to 23.33 (19.88) in post-intervention (p < 0.001). Finally, headache intensity was 7.33 (0.98) and 5.78 (1.83), which significantly decreased to 2.77 (2.04), and 1.38 (1.48) after the intervention based on the Diary Scale for Headache and McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2), respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the results show that mindful hypnotherapy is a feasible and effective treatment for chronic migraine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".