Cited by 223Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPain Management and Treatment

Psychological approaches to chronic pain management: evidence and challenges

Open access
Eccleston, C, Morley, S.J., Williams, A.C.deC.·2013·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

Psychological interventions are a mainstay of modern pain management practice and a recommended feature of a modern pain treatment service. Systematic reviews for the evidence of psychological interventions are reviewed in this article. The evidence for effectiveness is strongest for cognitive behavioural therapy with a focus on cognitive coping strategies and behavioural rehearsal. Most evidence is available for treatments of adult pain, although adolescent chronic pain treatments are also reviewed. It is clear that treatment benefit can be achieved with cognitive behavioural methods. It is possible to effect change in pain, mood, and disability, changes not achieved by chance or by exposure to any other treatment. However, the overall effect sizes of treatments for adults, across all trials, are modest. Reasons for the relatively modest treatment effects are discussed within the context of all treatments for chronic pain being disappointing when measured by the average. Suggestions for improving both trials and evidence summaries are made. Finally, consideration is given to what can be achieved by the pain specialist without access to specialist psychology resource.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bja/aet207

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eccleston, C., Morley, S. J., & Williams, A. C. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Eccleston, C
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-07
Volume
111
Issue
1
Pages
59-63
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126062344
Cited by
223
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic pain management, psychological intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy, coping strategies, adolescent chronic pain, treatment effectiveness, effect size, disability
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, 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