CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized trial of group cognitive behavioral therapy compared with a pain education control for low-literacy rural people with chronic pain

Open access
Thorn, Beverly E., Day, Melissa A., Burns, John, Kuhajda, Melissa C., Gaskins, Susan W., Sweeney, Kelly, McConley, Regina, Ward, Charles L., Cabbil, Chalanda·2011·Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.007PMC PMC3215913
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Chronic pain is a common and costly experience. Cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT) are efficacious for an array of chronic pain conditions. However, the literature is based primarily on urban (white) samples. It is unknown whether CBT works in low-socioeconomic status (SES) minority and nonminority groups. To address this question, we conducted a randomized controlled trial within a low-SES, rural chronic pain population. Specifically, we examined the feasibility, tolerability, acceptability, and efficacy of group CBT compared with a group education intervention (EDU). We hypothesized that although both interventions would elicit short- and long-term improvement across pain-related outcomes, the cognitively-focused CBT protocol would uniquely influence pain catastrophizing. Mixed design analyses of variance were conducted on the sample of eligible participants who did not commence treatment (N=26), the intention-to-treat sample (ITT; N=83), and the completer sample (N=61). Factors associated with treatment completion were examined. Results indicated significantly more drop-outs occurred in CBT. ITT analyses showed that participants in both conditions reported significant improvement across pain-related outcomes, and a nonsignificant trend was found for depressed mood to improve more in CBT than EDU. Results of the completer analyses produced a similar pattern of findings; however, CBT produced greater gains on cognitive and affect variables than EDU. Treatment gains were maintained at 6-month follow-up (N=54). Clinical significance of the findings and the number of treatment responders is reported. Overall, these findings indicate that CBT and EDU are viable treatment options in low-SES minority and nonminority groups. Further research should target disseminating and sustaining psychosocial treatment options within underserved populations.

Overview

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.pain.2011.07.007

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 88 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–125 of 125

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Thorn, B. E., Day, M. A., Burns, J., Kuhajda, M. C., Gaskins, S. W., Sweeney, K., McConley, R., Ward, C. L., & Cabbil, C.
Affiliations
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Tuscaloosa VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Thorn, Beverly E.
ORCID
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2011-12
Volume
152
Issue
12
Pages
2710-2720
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.007
PMC
PMC3215913
OpenAlex
W2090902762
Cited by
124
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Nursing Research (NR010112, R21NR010112)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
group cognitive behavioral therapy, chronic pain, pain education, low literacy, rural population, low socioeconomic status, minority groups, pain catastrophizing, treatment discontinuation, treatment completion, depression, treatment acceptability, feasibility, maintenance of treatment gains
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Psychotherapy, Group, Rural Population, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Information Literacy, Chronic Pain

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