Cited by 41Mental Health via WritingRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesArt Therapy and Mental Health

The effects of written emotional disclosure and coping skills training in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized clinical trial

Open access
Lumley, Mark A., Keefe, Francis J., Mosley-Williams, Angelia, Rice, John R., McKee, Daphne, Waters, Sandra J., Partridge, R. Ty, Carty, Jennifer N. +8 more·2014·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Two psychological interventions for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are cognitive-behavioral coping skills training (CST) and written emotional disclosure (WED). These approaches have developed independently, and their combination may be more effective than either one alone. Furthermore, most studies of each intervention have methodological limitations, and each needs further testing. METHOD: We randomized 264 adults with RA in a 2 × 2 factorial design to 1 of 2 writing conditions (WED vs. control writing) followed by 1 of 2 training conditions (CST vs. arthritis education control training). Patient-reported pain and functioning, blinded evaluations of disease activity and walking speed, and an inflammatory marker (C-reactive protein) were assessed at baseline and 1-, 4-, and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: Completion of each intervention was high (>90% of patients), and attrition was low (10.2% at 12-month follow-up). Hierarchical linear modeling of treatment effects over the follow-up period, and analyses of covariance at each assessment point, revealed no interactions between writing and training; however, both interventions had main effects on outcomes, with small effect sizes. Compared with control training, CST decreased pain and psychological symptoms through 12 months. The effects of WED were mixed: Compared with control writing, WED reduced disease activity and physical disability at 1 month only, but WED had more pain than control writing on 1 of 2 measures at 4 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of WED and CST does not improve outcomes, perhaps because each intervention has unique effects at different time points. CST improves health status in RA and is recommended for patients, whereas WED has limited benefits and needs strengthening or better targeting to appropriate patients.

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 · 10.1037/a0036958

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • The IGHE and SGHE arms were selected as active comparison groups to address possible non-specific intervention effects.

    “IGHE/SGHE were chosen as active comparison groups to address possible non-specific aspects of intervention effects based on our prior studies36–38.”

    From Improving well-being for individuals with persistent pain after surgery for breast cancer, lobular carcinoma in situ, or ductal carcinoma in situ: A randomized clinical trial (2022) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Methods > Training Conditions passage says the arthritis-education control was used to account for non-specific factors, including therapist attention, time, and expectations for improvement. The paper does not identify IGHE or SGHE arms or say that those specific groups were selected. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For Lumley 2014, blinding of outcome assessment was judged low risk because assessments were by staff who were blind to allocation.

    “Low risk Assessments by staF who were blind to allocation”

    From Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults (2020) · cites this paper as Lumley 2014

    Methods > Measures (page not available) says the rheumatologist assessing disease activity was blind to treatment condition and the rheumatologist or technician measuring walking speed was blinded. It does not say that staff assessing every outcome were blind to allocation, so the broader rationale for a low-risk judgment is only partly supported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For Lumley 2014, incomplete outcome data was judged low risk because attrition was less than 10%, mixed models were used, and ITT analyses were conducted.

    “Low risk Attrition < 10%; mixed models used, and ITT analyses.”

    From Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults (2020) · cites this paper as Lumley 2014

    The Methods (Data Analyses) report hierarchical linear modeling and intent-to-treat analyses of all 264 randomized participants. The Results (Participation and Attrition Analyses) report some follow-up data for 94.3%, but only 89.8% were assessed at the final 12-month follow-up—attrition of 10.2%, not less than 10%. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For Lumley 2014, allocation concealment was judged low risk because at the end of the pretreatment evaluation, the research assistant and each patient jointly opened the next envelope in the sequence, which contained the patient's randomly assigned writing and training conditions.

    “Low risk”
  • For Lumley 2014, random sequence generation was judged low risk because an independent person used randomization software to develop condition assignments, stratified by study site and medication classes, with assignments sealed in envelopes.

    “Low risk”

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
Lumley, M. A., Keefe, F. J., Mosley-Williams, A., Rice, J. R., McKee, D., Waters, S. J., Partridge, R. T., Carty, J. N., Coltri, A. M., Kalaj, A., Cohen, J. L., Neely, L. C., Pahssen, J. K., Connelly, M. A., Bouaziz, Y. B., & Riordan, P. A.
Affiliations
North Carolina Central University (US)
Corresponding author
Lumley, Mark A.
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2014
Volume
82
Issue
4
Pages
644-658
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2318405787
Cited by
41
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (AR049059)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (AR057808 and AR057047)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Art Therapy and Mental Health
Keywords
rheumatoid arthritis, written emotional disclosure, coping skills training, cognitive-behavioral intervention, psychological intervention, pain, physical function, disease activity, C-reactive protein, psychological symptoms
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Arthritis, Rheumatoid, C-Reactive Protein, Emotions, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Education, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Problem Solving, Self Disclosure, Writing, Biomarkers, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Walking

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