Cited by 179Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Effects of a Tailored Positive Psychology Intervention on Well-Being and Pain in Individuals With Chronic Pain and a Physical Disability: A Feasibility Trial

Müller, Rachel, Gertz, Kevin J., Molton, Ivan R., Terrill, Alexandra L., Bombardier, Charles H., Ehde, Dawn M., Jensen, Mark P.·2016·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a computer-based positive psychology intervention in individuals with a physical disability and chronic pain. METHODS: Individuals with spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, neuromuscular disease, or postpolio syndrome and chronic pain were randomly assigned to a positive psychology or a control condition. Participants in the intervention group were instructed to practice 4 personalized positive psychology exercises. Participants in the control group were instructed to write about life details for 8 weeks. Participants completed online well-being and pain-related questionnaires at baseline, posttreatment, and at the 2.5-month follow-up, and rated treatment satisfaction at posttreatment. RESULTS: Ninety-six participants were randomized and 68 (70%) completed follow-up assessments. Participants in the positive psychology intervention group reported significant pretreatment to posttreatment improvements in pain intensity, pain control, pain catastrophizing, pain interference, life satisfaction, positive affect, and depression. Improvements in life satisfaction, depression, pain intensity, pain interference, and pain control were maintained to the 2.5-month follow-up. Participants in the control group reported significant pretreatment to posttreatment improvements in life satisfaction, and pretreatment to follow-up improvements in pain intensity and pain control. Significant between-group differences, favoring the treatment group, emerged for pretreatment to posttreatment improvements in pain intensity and pain control. Participants were similarly satisfied with both treatments. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The results support the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a computer-based positive psychology intervention for improving well-being and pain-related outcomes in individuals with physical disabilities and chronic pain, and indicate that a full trial of the intervention is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000225

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • Passive coping strategies are linked to poorer outcomes such as increased pain and depression.

    “while passive strategies are linked to poorer outcomes such as increased pain and depression 258, 267–270.”
  • Active coping strategies are linked to positive affect, better psychological adjustment, and decreased depression.

    “Active coping strategies, for example, have been linked to positive affect, better psychological adjustment, and decreased depression while passive strategies are linked to poorer outcomes such as increased pain and depression 258, 267–270.”
  • Pain-related self-efficacy predicts functional pain outcomes.

    “predicts functional pain outcomes.”
  • Pain-related self-efficacy is a protective factor for patients with persistent pain and a resiliency factor for children, adolescents, and adults with chronic pain.

    “Pain-related self-efficacy, a protective factor for patients with persistent pain and a resiliency factorfor children, adolescents, and adults with chronic pain 270, predicts functional pain outcomes.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Müller, R., Gertz, K. J., Molton, I. R., Terrill, A. L., Bombardier, C. H., Ehde, D. M., & Jensen, M. P.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
  • Müller, Rachel
  • Gertz, Kevin J.
  • Molton, Ivan R.
  • Terrill, Alexandra L.
  • Bombardier, Charles H.
  • Ehde, Dawn M.
  • Jensen, Mark P.
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2016-01
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
32-44
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2332959124
Cited by
179
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
37.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
positive psychology interventions, chronic pain, physical disability, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, neuromuscular disorders, post-polio syndrome, computer-based intervention, pain catastrophizing, pain interference, pain management, life satisfaction, depression, positive affect, well-being, feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Computers, Depression, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, International Cooperation, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Pilot Projects, Psychotherapy, Single-Blind Method, Patient Satisfaction, Young Adult, Catastrophization, 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