Cited by 95Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UseOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Clinical Policy Recommendations from the VHA State-of-the-Art Conference on Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

Open access
Kligler, Benjamin, Bair, Matthew J., Banerjea, Ranjana, DeBar, Lynn, Ezeji-Okoye, Stephen, Lisi, Anthony, Murphy, Jennifer L., Sandbrink, Friedhelm +1 more·2018·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

As a large national healthcare system, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is ideally suited to build on its work to date and develop a safe, evidence-based, and comprehensive approach to the care of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions that de-emphasizes opioid use and emphasizes non-pharmacological strategies. The VHA Office of Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) held a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference titled "Non-pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Management" in November 2016. Goals of the conference were (1) to establish consensus on the current state of evidence regarding non-pharmacological approaches to chronic musculoskeletal pain to inform VHA policy in this area and (2) to begin to identify priorities for the future VHA research agenda. Workgroups were established and asked to reach consensus recommendations on clinical and research priorities for the following treatment strategies: psychological/behavioral therapies, exercise/movement therapies, manual therapies, and models for delivering multimodal pain care. Participants in the SOTA identified nine non-pharmacological therapies with sufficient evidence to be implemented across the VHA system as part of pain care. Participants further recommended that effective integration of these non-pharmacological approaches across the VHA and especially into VHA primary care, pain care, and mental health settings should be a priority, and that these treatments should be offered early in the course of pain treatment and delivered in a team-based, multimodal treatment setting concurrently with active self-care and self-management approaches. In addition, we recommend that VHA leadership and policy makers systematically address the barriers to implementation of these approaches by expanding opportunities for clinician and veteran education on the effectiveness of these strategies; supporting and funding further research to determine optimal dosage, duration, sequencing, combination, and frequency of treatment; emphasizing multimodal care with rigorous evaluation grounded in team-based approaches to test integrated models of delivery and stepped-care approaches; and working to address socioeconomic and cultural barriers to veterans' access to non-pharmacological approaches.

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 · 10.1007/s11606-018-4323-z

Cites

64 of 64 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?

  • Among EBPs, CBT, ACT, and MBSR are widely used and have the strongest evidence for treating chronic pain and mental health conditions prevalent in US veterans.

    “three of the most widely used EBPs with the strongest evidence for effectiveness in chronic pain as well as for multiple mental health conditions common among U.S. military veterans.8,9”

    From Evaluation of Implementation Strategies for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR): a Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Psychological/Behavioral Therapies section reviews evidence for CBT, ACT, and MBSR in chronic pain, including some improvements in mood or distress. It does not establish that all three are among the most widely used therapies or have the strongest evidence for multiple mental health conditions common among U.S. veterans. The veteran-specific evidence it discusses concerns CBT for chronic pain. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CBT, ACT, and MBSR are effective treatments for chronic pain and for depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions prevalent in US veterans.

    “Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) are effective for chronic pain and several mental health conditions.”

    From Evaluation of Implementation Strategies for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR): a Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Psychological/Behavioral Therapies section supports CBT, ACT, and MBSR for chronic pain and reports improvements in mood, depression, distress, or pain-related anxiety among people treated for pain. It does not establish that all three are effective treatments for several mental health conditions as distinct diagnoses, or specifically establish that claim for US veterans. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians; American College of Physicians; American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. Ann Intern Med 2007;147(7):478-491.
  2. Rosenberger PH, Kerns R. Implementation of the VA Stepped Care Model of Pain Management. Ann Behav Med. 2012;43:S265-S.
  3. Kerns RD. Implementation of a stepped care approach to pain care in the VA. Ann Behav Med 2010;39:118.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kligler, B., Bair, M. J., Banerjea, R., DeBar, L., Ezeji-Okoye, S., Lisi, A., Murphy, J. L., Sandbrink, F., & Cherkin, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Kligler, Benjamin
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2018-04-09
Volume
33
Issue
S1
Pages
16-23
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2797750378
Cited by
95
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4
FWCI
6.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Health Services Research and Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
chronic musculoskeletal pain, non-pharmacological pain management, Veterans Health Administration, opioid use reduction, manual therapy, team-based care, stepped care, self-management, veterans, implementation barriers, research priorities
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Exercise Therapy, Health Policy, Humans, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Physical Therapy Modalities, Consensus, Chronic Pain, Musculoskeletal 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