Cited by 253Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

A randomized trial of a cognitive-behavioral program for enhancing back pain self care in a primary care setting.

Moore, James E., Von Korff, Michael, Cherkin, Daniel, Saunders, Kathleen, Lorig, Kate·2000·Pain

Abstract

Back pain is a significant health care problem that has been managed unsatisfactorily in primary care settings. Providers typically address medical issues but do not adequately address patient concerns or functional limitations related to back pain. We evaluated a brief intervention for primary care back pain patients designed to provide accurate information about back pain, instill attitudes favorable towards self care, reduce fears and worries, assist patients in developing personalized action plans to manage their back pain, and improve functional outcomes. Patients enrolled in a large health maintenance organization were invited to participate in an educational program to improve back pain self care skills 6-8 weeks after a primary care back pain visit. Patients (n=226) were randomly assigned to a Self Care intervention or to Usual Care, and were assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-months. The intervention involved a two-session Self Care group and an individual meeting and telephone conversation with the group leader, a psychologist experienced in chronic pain management. The intervention was supplemented by educational materials (book and videos) supporting active management of back pain. The control group received usual care supplemented by a book on back pain care. Participants assigned to the Self Care intervention showed significantly greater reductions in back-related worry and fear-avoidance beliefs than the control group. Modest, but statistically significant, effects on pain ratings and interference with activities were also observed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00314-6

Cites

50 of 50 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore, J. E., Von Korff, M., Cherkin, D., Saunders, K., & Lorig, K.
Affiliations
  • Group Health Cooperative (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Moore, James E.
Venue
Pain
Published
2000-11
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
145-153
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025314877
Cited by
252
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Boeing
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (P01 DE08773, P01DE008773)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › 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
back pain, self-care, cognitive-behavioral intervention, primary care, fear-avoidance beliefs, chronic pain management, functional outcome, health maintenance organizations, patient education
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude, Back Pain, Disability Evaluation, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Primary Health Care, Self Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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