Cited by 39Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Processes of change in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Applied Relaxation for long-standing pain

Kemani, M.K., Hesser, H., Olsson, G.L., Lekander, M., Wicksell, R.K.·2016·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The utility of cognitive behavioural (CB) interventions for chronic pain has been supported in numerous studies. This includes Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which has gained increased empirical support. Previous research suggests that improvements in pain catastrophizing and psychological inflexibility are related to improvements in treatment outcome in this type of treatment. Although a few studies have evaluated processes of change in CB-interventions, there is a particular need for mediation analyses that use multiple assessments to model change in mediators and outcome over time, and that incorporate the specified timeline between mediator and outcome in the data analytic model. METHODS: This study used session-to-session assessments to evaluate if psychological inflexibility, catastrophizing, and pain intensity mediated the effects of treatment on pain interference. Analyses were based on data from a previously conducted randomized controlled trial (n = 60) evaluating the efficacy of ACT and Applied Relaxation (AR). A moderated mediation model based on linear mixed models was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Neither catastrophizing nor pain intensity mediated changes in pain interference for any of the treatments. In contrast, psychological inflexibility mediated effects on outcome in ACT but not in AR. CONCLUSIONS: Results add to previous findings illustrating the role of psychological inflexibility as a mediator in ACT.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejp.754

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kemani, M. K., Hesser, H., Olsson, G. L., Lekander, M., & Wicksell, R. K.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Kemani, M.K.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-12-18
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
521-531
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2214858340
Cited by
39
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Kommunfullmäktige, Stockholms Stad
  • Karolinska Institutet
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
acceptance and commitment therapy, applied relaxation, chronic pain, change processes, psychological inflexibility, pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, moderated mediation, cognitive-behavioural intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Relaxation Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Catastrophization, Chronic Pain, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

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