Pain Coping Skills Training for Patients Receiving Hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Chronic pain is common among individuals with dialysis-dependent kidney failure. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of pain coping skills training (PCST), a cognitive behavioral intervention, on pain interference. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial of PCST vs usual care was conducted across 16 academic centers and 103 outpatient dialysis facilities in the US. Adults undergoing maintenance hemodialysis and experiencing chronic pain were randomly assigned to PCST or usual care in a 1:1 ratio. Participants were followed in the trial for 36 weeks. Enrollment began on January 4, 2021, and follow-up ended on December 21, 2023. Interventions: PCST consisting of 12 weekly coach-led sessions via video or telephone conferencing, followed by 12 weeks of daily interactive voice response sessions. Usual care had no trial-driven pain intervention. Main Outcomes: The primary outcome was pain interference measured with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Interference subscale (score range of 0-10, with higher scores indicating more pain interference). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, quality of life, depression, and anxiety. Results: A total of 643 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.3 [12.6] years; 288 [44.8%] female) were randomized, with 319 assigned to PCST and 324 assigned to usual care. At week 12 (primary end point), the PCST group had a larger reduction in the BPI Interference score than the usual care group (between-group difference, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.12; P = .009). The effect persisted at week 24 (between-group difference in BPI Interference score, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.86 to -0.11) but was diminished at week 36 (between-group difference in BPI Interference score, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.04). A decrease in BPI Interference score greater than 1 point (minimal clinically important difference) occurred in 143 of 281 participants (50.9%) in the PCST group vs 108 of 295 participants (36.6%) in the usual care group at 12 weeks (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.28-2.49) and 142 of 258 participants (55.0%) in the PCST group vs 113 of 264 participants (42.8%) in the usual care group at 24 weeks (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.13-2.24). Favorable changes with PCST were also apparent for secondary outcomes of pain intensity, quality of life, depression, and anxiety at weeks 12 and/or 24, as well as for pain catastrophizing at weeks 24 and 36. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis, PCST had benefits on pain interference and other pain-associated outcomes. While the effect on the overall cohort was of modest magnitude, the intervention resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in pain interference for a substantial proportion of participants. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04571619.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
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".