Cited by 252Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Psychological interventions for arthritis pain management in adults: A meta-analysis.

Dixon, Kim E., Keefe, Francis J., Scipio, Cindy D., Perri, LisaCaitlin M., Abernethy, Amy P.·2007·Health Psychology

Abstract

CONTEXT: The psychosocial impact of arthritis can be profound. There is growing interest in psychosocial interventions for managing pain and disability in arthritis patients. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis reports on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for arthritis pain and disability. DATA SOURCES: Articles evaluating psychosocial interventions for arthritis were identified through Cochrane Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid PsycINFO data sources. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in arthritis pain management were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Pain intensity was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included psychological, physical, and biological functioning. DATA SYNTHESIS: An overall effect size of 0.177 (95% CI=0.256-0.094) indicated that patients receiving psychosocial interventions reported significantly lower pain than patients in control conditions (combined p=.01). Meta-analyses also supported the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that psychosocial interventions may have significant effects on pain and other outcomes in arthritis patients. Ample evidence for the additional benefit of such interventions over and above that of standard medical care was found.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.26.3.241

Cites

52 of 52 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

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dixon, K. E., Keefe, F. J., Scipio, C. D., Perri, L. M., & Abernethy, A. P.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2007-05
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
241-250
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2061549260
Cited by
252
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 23
FWCI
10.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (AR047218-01A2; A AR50245-01; R049059-01A1)
  • Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (20010439)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
arthritis, psychosocial interventions, pain management, pain intensity, disability, psychological functioning, physical function
MeSH terms
Arthritis, Humans, Middle Aged, Pain, United States, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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