Cited by 13Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPain Management and Treatment

Six month post-treatment deterioration in acceptance (CPAQ-8) and cognitions following multidisciplinary pain treatment

Baranoff, John, Hanrahan, Stephanie J., Kapur, Dilip, Connor, Jason P.·2014·Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Pain acceptance contributes significantly to the effectiveness of pain treatment outcomes. Nevertheless, little research has been conducted to examine whether a decrease in acceptance contributes to a deterioration in post treatment functioning. The aim of this study was to assess the role of pain acceptance in relation to process and outcome variables in the six-months following the conclusion of a pain program. Adults with chronic pain (N = 120) completed assessments at the completion of a 3-week multidisciplinary treatment program and 6-months post-treatment. Process measures included the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire-8 (CPAQ-8); the catastrophizing scale of the Pain Response Self-Statement Scale; the coping cognitions scale of the Pain Response Self-Statement Scale; and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. Outcome measures included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; the depression scale of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale; and two measures of physical functioning. Deterioration in acceptance of pain was significantly associated with deterioration in depression and disability, even when catastrophizing cognitions and kinesiophobia were accounted for. Decrease in acceptance was the strongest predictor of reliable deterioration in depression and disability. Results indicated the CPAQ-8 has utility as a measure for monitoring patient functioning post-treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10865-013-9502-0

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 13

Authors
Baranoff, J., Hanrahan, S. J., Kapur, D., & Connor, J. P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Flinders Medical Centre (AU)
Corresponding author
Baranoff, John
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2013-03-16
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
469-479
ISSN
  • 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3521
OpenAlex
W2021975425
Cited by
13
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pain acceptance, multidisciplinary pain management, chronic pain, depression, disability, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, physical function, treatment outcome monitoring
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Chronic Pain, Pain Management

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