Comparative Efficacy of Combined Versus Singular Auditory Alpha-Theta Brainwave Entrainment and Hypnotherapy Modalities in Chronic Pain Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental quantitative research, a randomized controlled trial, evaluated combined efficacy of auditory alpha-theta brainwave entrainment (BWE) and hypnotherapy in chronic pain management versus each modality alone. Chronic pain is a serious clinical challenge that may benefit from novel, nonpharmacological interventions. Previous studies have demonstrated benefits of both BWE and hypnotherapy for pain; but research on combined effects was not identified. This study hypothesized that a synergistic approach would offer superior pain relief compared to singular modalities. The study utilized a randomized controlled trial design with a sample size of 38 participants, initially, aged 25 to 65 years old, recruited through pain support groups across the United States referred by clinics, clinicians, and patients. Participants underwent screening to ensure eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-four participants engaged in three 22-minute sessions per week, utilizing audio sessions delivered through headphones or earbuds, for 8 weeks. Data collection involved pre-study, post-session, weekly, and end-of-study surveys consisting of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Euro (Qol- 5D-5L), to assess pain levels and quality of life, respectively. Data analysis encompassed descriptive and inferential statistics, including correlations between covariates, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc tests. Implications for positive social change include refining treatment protocols for adjunct or alternative pain management strategies, reducing opioid reliance, promoting wider use of multimodal approaches to pain control, and improving chronic pain outcomes. This research may inform clinical practice and lay groundwork for integrative pain management approaches.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".