Cited by 112Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPain Management and Placebo Effect

Is reduction in pain catastrophizing a therapeutic mechanism specific to cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain?

Open access
Burns, John W, Day, Melissa A, Thorn, Beverly E·2012·Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Mechanisms underlying favorable outcomes of psychosocial interventions for chronic pain are unclear. Theory suggests changes in maladaptive cognitions represent therapeutic mechanisms specific to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). We illustrate the importance of examining whether treatments work either uniquely via mechanisms specified by theory or via mechanisms common to different treatments. Secondary data analysis was conducted to examine the effects of reduction in pain catastrophizing on outcomes following CBT and Pain Education. Generally, reductions in pain catastrophizing were significantly related to outcome improvements irrespective of CBT or Pain Education condition. Results underscore the need to assess whether mechanisms presumed to operate specifically in one treatment do indeed predict outcomes and illustrate the importance of broadening the assessment of mechanisms beyond those specified by theory. Theory-specific, competing, and common mechanisms must all be assessed to determine why our treatments work.

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/s13142-011-0086-3

Cites

66 of 66 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Vlaeyen JW, Teeken-Gruben NJ, Goossens ME, Molken Rutten- van. Cognitive-educational treatment of fibromyalgia: a random- ized controlled clinical trial. J Rheumatol. 1996; 23(7):1237- 1245.
  2. Moseley GL. Physiotherapy is effective for chronic low back pain. A randomised controlled trial. Aust J Physiother. 2002; 48:297- 302.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burns, J. W., Day, M. A., & Thorn, B. E.
Affiliations
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
Corresponding author
Thorn, Beverly E
Venue
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Published
2011-11-22
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
22-29
ISSN
  • 1613-9860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-6716
OpenAlex
W1996201879
Cited by
112
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, cognitive behavioral therapy, chronic pain, pain education, therapeutic mechanisms, maladaptive cognitions, psychosocial interventions, common mechanisms

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