Cited by 55Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for chronic pain: A diary study of treatment process in relation to reliable change in disability

Open access
Vowles, Kevin E., Fink, Brandi C., Cohen, Lindsey L.·2014·Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Abstract

In chronic pain treatment, a primary goal is reduced disability. It is often assumed that a central process by which disability reduction occurs is pain reduction. Conversely, approaches such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) posit that pain reduction is not necessary for reduced disability. Instead, disability reduction occurs when responses to pain are changed, such that as unsuccessful struggles for pain control decreases and engagement in personally-valued activities increases. Treatment outcome studies have supported ACT's effectiveness; however, less work has examined how within-treatment patterns of change relate to treatment success or failure (i.e., decreased or sustained disability). The present study, therefore, sought to examine this issue. Specifically, struggles for pain control and engagement in valued activities were recorded weekly in 21 patients who completed a four week interdisciplinary ACT intervention for chronic pain. It was hypothesized that the presence or absence of reliable change in disability at a three month follow-up would be predicted by within treatment patterns of change in the weekly data. At follow-up, 47.6% of patients evidenced reliable disability reduction. The expected pattern of change occurred in 81.0% of patients-specifically, when pain control attempts decreased and engagement in valued activities increased, reliably reduced disability typically occurred, while the absence of this pattern was typically associated with a lack of reliable change. Further, changes in pain intensity, also assessed weekly, were unrelated to reliable change. Overall, these results provide additional support for the ACT model and further suggest some possible requirements for treatment success.

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 · 10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.04.003

Cites

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?

  • ACT has shown effectiveness for functional and quality of life improvements when interventions directly targeting nociceptive pain achieve limited success.

    “ACT has shown effectiveness for functional and quality of life improvements when interventions directly targeting nociceptive pain achieve limited success [30, 31].”

    From Benchmark findings from a veteran electronic patient-reported outcomes evaluation from a chronic pain management telehealth program (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results report reliable improvement in disability for 10 of 21 patients after ACT, supporting the functional-improvement claim. The Introduction describes ACT as useful when efforts to control or reduce pain have failed, and the Discussion says disability reduction did not require a change in pain intensity. The study does not establish quality-of-life improvement or compare ACT with interventions directly targeting nociceptive pain. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 55

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hayes SC Strosahl KD Wilson KG 2012 Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change 2nd New York Guilford Press

Authors
Vowles, K. E., Fink, B. C., & Cohen, L. L.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Vowles, Kevin E.
Venue
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-04
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
74-80
ISSN
2212-1447 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966089532
Cited by
55
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (L30 AA021608)
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, chronic pain, disability reduction, treatment process, diary study, valued activities, multidisciplinary pain management, reliable change, pain intensity

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