Cited by 91Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPain Management and Treatment

Physical therapy informed by acceptance and commitment therapy (PACT) versus usual care physical therapy for adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Open access
Godfrey, Emma, Wileman, Vari, Galea Holmes, Melissa, McCracken, Lance M., Norton, Sam, Moss-Morris, Rona, Noonan, Sandra, Barcellona, Massimo +1 more·2020·The Journal of Pain

Abstract

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major cause of global disability and improving management is essential. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is a promising treatment for chronic pain but has not been modified for physical therapy. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared physical therapy informed by ACT (PACT) against standard care physical therapy for patients with CLBP. Patients with CLBP (duration ≥12 weeks, mean 3 years) were recruited from physical therapy clinics in 4 UK public hospitals. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at 3 months' post-randomization was the primary outcome. Two hundred forty-eight participants (59% female, mean age = 48) were recruited and 219 (88.3%) completed measures at 3 and/or 12 months' follow-up. At 3 months, PACT participants reported better outcomes for disability (RMDQ mean difference = 1.07, p = .037, 95% CI = -2.08 to -.07, d = .2), Patient Specific Functioning (p = .008), SF12 physical health (p = .032), and treatment credibility (p < .001). At 12 months' follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups. PACT was acceptable to patients and clinicians and feasible to deliver. Physical therapists incorporated psychological principles successfully and treatment was delivered with high (≥80%) fidelity. Our results may inform the management of CLBP, with potential benefits for patients, health care providers, and society. PERSPECTIVE: Psychologically informed physical therapy has great potential but there are challenges in implementation. The training and support included in the PACT trial enabled the intervention to be delivered as planned. This successfully reduced disability in the short but not long term. Findings could inform physical therapists' treatment of CLBP.

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.jpain.2019.05.012

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • ACT-informed PiPT has demonstrated improvement for back-related disability, function, and pain interference, addressed barriers for engagement in physical activity, and patients report greater internal awareness that their whole being was not defined by their pain experience.

    “ACT informed PiPT has demonstrated improvement for back-related disability, function, and pain-interference, addressed barriers for engagement in physical activity, and patients report the program supports greater internal awareness that their whole being was not defined by their pain experience.22,36,44,46”

    From Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization (2023) · cites this paper as [44]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Continued clarification is needed to implement all six interlinked processes of ACT for physical activity promotion and PiPT.

    “Continued clarification is needed to implement all six interlinked processes of ACT for physical activity promotion and PiPT.”

    From Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization (2023) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Discussion (page not provided) calls for further work on PACT training and on how to influence its intended processes of change, specifically acceptance and committed action. It does not call for implementing all six ACT processes or establish that need for physical activity promotion generally; the trial concerns physical therapy for chronic low back pain. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Delivery of ACT-informed PiPT by physical therapists is mixed and inconsistent for which of the six processes are utilized and for adherence to ACT methods throughout interventions.

    “While ACT informed PiPT is promising, delivery by PTs is mixed and inconsistent for which of the six processes are utilized and for adherence to ACT methods throughout interventions.38,44”

    From Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization (2023) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Fidelity section reports that few core ACT methods were delivered, with average ACT fidelity of 16.4 out of 40, supporting concern about adherence to ACT methods. It does not assess inconsistent use of the six ACT processes across interventions; for this trial, it reports high overall adherence to the PACT intervention (88%). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ACT-informed PiPT may support fully embracing the current experience while encouraging commitment to valued living as ongoing motivation to explore movement in new and adaptive ways.

    “ACT informed PiPT may support fully embracing the current experience (e.g. to both notice and allow for distressing thoughts, emotions, and/or body sensations without judging or trying to change or fix them) while encouraging the person’s commitment to valued living as ongoing motivation to explore movement in new and adaptive ways.38,44”

    From Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization (2023) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Procedures section describes PACT as including value-based goals, individualized exercise, and skills to promote psychological flexibility; the introduction describes ACT as using acceptance, mindfulness, and values-based action. These support the broad description, but the paper does not establish that PACT motivated people to explore movement in new ways. The Discussion says its mechanisms of action were unclear and found no between-group differences in acceptance or committed action. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The success of delivery of PiPT and PNE has been shown to be impacted by the PT's confidence and comfort with the program as well as the therapist having the qualities necessary to implement patient-centered care.

    “The success of delivery of PiPT and PNE has been shown to be impacted by the PT’s confidence and comfort with the program as well as the therapist having the qualities necessary to implement patient-centered care.20,28,32,35,44,52”

    From Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization (2023) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says physical therapists’ lack of confidence can hinder delivery of psychological interventions and that training and supervision enabled high-fidelity delivery of PACT. The paper does not establish the claimed effects of comfort with the program or therapist qualities for patient-centered care, and it does not address PNE delivery. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Godfrey, E., Wileman, V., Galea Holmes, M., McCracken, L. M., Norton, S., Moss-Morris, R., Noonan, S., Barcellona, M., & Critchley, D.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Godfrey, Emma
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
21
Issue
1-2
Pages
71-81
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2949021225
Cited by
91
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
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 low back pain, acceptance and commitment therapy, physiotherapy, disability, treatment credibility, intervention fidelity, treatment acceptability
MeSH terms
Adult, Combined Modality Therapy, Exercise Therapy, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Single-Blind Method, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

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