Testing Biological and Psychological Pathways of Emotion Regulation as a Primary Mechanism of Action in Yoga Interventions for Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interventions that promote adaptive emotion regulation (ER) skills reduce pain in patients with chronic pain; however, whether the effects of yoga practice on chronic low back pain (CLBP) are due to improvements in ER remains to be examined. OBJECTIVE: This study will test whether the effects of yoga on CLBP (improved pain severity and interference) are mediated by improved ER, the extent to which effects are related to specific aspects of ER, and the role of pain sensitization as a mediator or moderator of effects. In this study, pain sensitization will be assessed by quantitative sensory testing and gene expression profiles to examine whether pain sensitization moderates yoga's effects on pain or whether yoga and ER abilities reduce pain sensitization, leading to decreased pain severity and interference. METHODS: For this 2-arm parallel group blinded randomized controlled trial, we will enroll 204 adults with CLBP who will be randomized to receive the yoga (n=102) or a control stretching and strengthening (n=102) intervention, which are delivered via web-based synchronous biweekly 75-minute sessions over 12 weeks. Participants are encouraged to practice postures or exercises for 25 minutes on other days using accessible prerecorded practice videos that are sent to participants digitally. Participants will be assessed at 5 time points: baseline, midintervention (6 weeks), postintervention (12 weeks), and 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Assessments of ER, pain severity and interference, pain sensitivity including somatosensory and gene expression profiles, and physical strength and flexibility will be conducted at each visit. The fidelity of the interventions is assessed using a manualized checklist to evaluate recorded group sessions to ensure consistent instructor delivery. RESULTS: The primary outcome will be the mean change in pain severity as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at 12 weeks. The primary mechanism of action is ER measured by change in the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale total score. Secondary outcomes include pain sensitivity, physical strength and flexibility, pain interference, and quality of life. A mediation path analysis and series of moderated mediation path analyses will be conducted to test the study hypotheses. As of January 2024, we have enrolled 138 participants. We expect the study to be completed by May 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide important data for evaluating whether improvements in ER are responsible for reduced pain perception and pain sensitivity as well as increased quality of life in the context of chronic pain. The study findings have important implications for determining the mechanism of action for yoga and possibly other mind-body interventions as nonpharmacological therapies for pain management. The results of the study will inform the content, delivery, and measures for intervention trials involving yoga as a modality for relieving pain and improving function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04678297; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04678297. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56016.
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 | 0.037 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.014 |
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".