Cited by 94Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPain Management and Treatment

Predicting Completion of a Cognitive-Behavioral Pain Management Program by Initial Measures of a Chronic Pain Patient's Readiness for Change

Biller, Nikola, Arnstein, Paul, Caudill, Margaret A., Federman, Carol Wells, Guberman, Carolyn·2000·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

Objective There is a need to identify pretreatment patient indicators, which are predictive of the successful enrollment and completion of chronic pain treatment programs. Recent evidence suggests the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire can predict enrollment and completion of a 10-session cognitive-behavioral pain management program. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the pretreatment Stages of Change Questionnaire can predict patients who would complete a cognitive-behavioral pain treatment program. Design Prospective cohort study using logistic regression analyses. Settings Patients referred for a 10-session cognitive-behavioral treatment program at a tertiary care multidisciplinary pain clinic or a community-based specialty clinic. Subjects Three hundred chronic pain patients (151 in the tertiary setting and 149 in the community-based setting) participated, with 147 of the patients (49%) completing and 153 (51%) patients not completing the 10-session program. Intervention Ten-visit cognitive-behavioral program for chronic pain patients. Outcome measure Completion of program. Results The Stages of Change Questionnaire scores could predict completion status chi2 (N = 300, 2 df) = 39.7, p Conclusion The Stages of Change Questionnaire is a potentially useful tool; however, the current scoring method is insufficient to recommend its use as an inclusion or exclusion criterion for enrollment in a cognitive-behavioral program.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00002508-200012000-00013

Cites

38 of 38 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
Biller, N., Arnstein, P., Caudill, M. A., Federman, C. W., & Guberman, C.
Affiliations
Boston College (US)
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2000-12
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
352-359
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005395504
Cited by
93
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic pain, cognitive-behavioral pain management, treatment completion, student dropout prediction, readiness to change, precontemplation, treatment enrollment, multidisciplinary pain clinic, depression, disability
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Patient Dropouts, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sick Role, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Logistic Models, 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