Cited by 51Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Pain catastrophizing as a treatment process variable in cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with chronic pain

Open access
Gilliam, Wesley P., Schumann, Matthew E., Cunningham, Julie L., Evans, Michele M., Luedtke, Connie A., Morrison, Eleshia J., Sperry, Jeannie A., Vowles, Kevin E.·2021·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for chronic pain is effective at improving function, mood and pain interference among individuals with disabling chronic pain. Traditionally, CBT assumes that cognitive change is an active therapeutic ingredient in the determination of treatment outcome. Pain catastrophizing, a cognitive response style that views the experience of pain as uncontrollable, permanent and destructive, has been identified as an important maladaptive cognition which contributes to difficulties with the management of chronic pain. Consequently, pain catastrophizing is commonly targeted in CBT for chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: To examine change trajectories in pain catastrophizing during treatment and assess the relevance of these trajectories to outcomes at posttreatment. METHODS: Participants included individuals with chronic pain (N = 463) who completed a 3-week program of interdisciplinary CBT. Pain catastrophizing was assessed weekly over the 3 weeks of treatment and latent growth curve modelling was used to identify trajectories of change. RESULTS: Findings indicated the presence of two classes of linear change, one with a significant negative slope in pain catastrophizing (i.e. improved class) and the other with a non-significant slope (i.e. unchanged class). Next, latent growth mixture modelling examined treatment outcome in relation to class membership. These results indicated that individuals in the 'improved' PCS class had significantly greater improvement in pain interference and mood, as well as physical and mental quality of life compared to the 'unchanged' class. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for our findings, in relation to the CBT model, are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejp.1671

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A single-session treatment is effective for modifying common cognitive features associated with emotional distress in chronic pain patients.

    “In a similar light, it has been proven that a single-session treatment is effective for modifying common cognitive features associated with emotional distress in chronic pain patients [102,103,104].”

    From A Single-Session Process-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention Combined with Multimodal Rehabilitation Treatment for Chronic Pain Associated with Emotional Disorders (2024) · cites this paper as [103]

    The Participants section describes a three-week course of interdisciplinary CBT, not a single-session treatment. The conclusion reports reductions in pain catastrophizing, a cognitive feature, during that course. The paper therefore supports cognitive change in chronic pain patients but not the claimed effectiveness of a single session. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Muthen, L.K. & Muthen, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User's Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
  2. Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., & Williams, J.B. (1999). Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1737-1744.
  3. Ware, J.E., Sherbourne. C.D., & Davies, A.R. (1993). Developing and testing the MOS 20-item short-form health survey: a general application. In A.L. Stewart & J.E. Ware Pain Catastrophizing 22 (Eds.), Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach (pp270-290). North Carolina, Duke University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilliam, W. P., Schumann, M. E., Cunningham, J. L., Evans, M. M., Luedtke, C. A., Morrison, E. J., Sperry, J. A., & Vowles, K. E.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
Corresponding author
Gilliam, Wesley P.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-11-27
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
339-347
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W3091773633
Cited by
51
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, cognitive behavioral therapy, chronic pain, change trajectories, pain interference, mood, quality of life, multidisciplinary pain management
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Catastrophization, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review