Cited by 137Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid UsePediatric Pain Management Techniques

Self-management intervention for chronic pain in older adults: A randomised controlled trial

Nicholas, Michael K., Asghari, Ali, Blyth, Fiona M., Wood, Bradley M., Murray, Robin, McCabe, Rebecca, Brnabic, Alan, Beeston, Lee +3 more·2013·Pain

Abstract

This study compared an outpatient pain self-management (PSM) program, using cognitive-behavioural therapy and exercises, with 2 control conditions in 141 chronic pain patients aged > 65 years. Results immediately posttreatment indicated that relative to the Exercise-Attention Control (EAC) group, the PSM group was significantly improved on measures of pain distress, disability, mood, unhelpful pain beliefs, and functional reach. The mean effect size for these gains was 0.52 (range: 0.44-0.68). By 1-month follow-up, relative to the EAC group, the PSM group remained better on most measures. At the 1-month follow-up, relative to a Waiting List (usual care) (WL) group, the PSM group was significantly improved on measures of pain distress, disability, and unhelpful pain beliefs. The mean effect size for these variables was 0.69 (range: 0.56-0.83). Relative to the WL group, the EAC group made no significant gains on any of the measured variables. At 1-month follow-up, the mean proportion of reliably improved cases (across outcome variables) was 41% (range: 16-60%) for the PSM group, twice that of those who met this criterion in the 2 control conditions (and this difference was statistically significant). Similarly, significantly more (44%) of the PSM group (vs 22% and 20% for the control groups) achieved a clinically significant improvement on pain disability. In the short term at least, cognitive-behavioural therapy-based PSM was more effective than exercises and usual care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2013.02.009

Cites

69 of 69 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
Nicholas, M. K., Asghari, A., Blyth, F. M., Wood, B. M., Murray, R., McCabe, R., Brnabic, A., Beeston, L., Corbett, M., Sherrington, C., & Overton, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Shahed University (IR)
Corresponding author
Nicholas, Michael K.
Venue
Pain
Published
2013-06
Volume
154
Issue
6
Pages
824-835
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168681512
Cited by
137
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council (AHMAC PDR 2005/08)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
chronic pain, older adults, pain self-management, cognitive behavioral therapy, physical activity, pain beliefs, pain-related disability, pain-related distress, mood, functional reach test, outpatient intervention
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Self Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Chronic Pain, 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