Cited by 253Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPain Management and Treatment

Processes of change in treatment for chronic pain: the contributions of pain, acceptance, and catastrophizing

Vowles, Kevin E., McCracken, Lance M., Eccleston, Christopher·2007·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Cognitive‐behavioral therapy has a substantial evidence base with regard to its effectiveness for individuals with chronic pain. Historically, although there has been some investigation in to the processes by which treatment succeeds or fails, few data are available regarding the unique contributions of processes from distinct cognitive behavioral approaches and how these processes may interact to affect patient functioning. The present investigation sought to evaluate three proposed process variables that have garnered empirical support within chronic pain settings, namely: pain intensity, catastrophizing, and acceptance. Participants were 252 consecutive patients who completed treatment on an interdisciplinary pain management unit. Using multiple regression, the contributions of changes in process variables to changes in treatment outcomes were assessed. In general, changes in both acceptance and catastrophizing accounted for significant variance independent of, and larger than, that accounted for by change in pain intensity. Changes in acceptance and catastrophizing accounted for roughly equivalent amounts of variance when entered immediately following changes in pain, and when entered following one another. The potential impact of these results is discussed in relation to the particular treatment delivered. Issues relating to change at the level of frequency or content of psychological experiences are considered relative to change in the functions of these experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.12.007

Cites

45 of 45 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
Vowles, K. E., McCracken, L. M., & Eccleston, C.
Affiliations
Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases (GB)
Corresponding author
Vowles, Kevin E.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
779-787
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W1976512343
Cited by
253
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
FWCI
9.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
chronic pain, cognitive behavioral therapy, pain intensity, pain acceptance, pain catastrophizing, multidisciplinary pain management, treatment outcomes, cognitive processes
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Chronic Disease, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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