Cited by 22Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Does systematic graded exposure in vivo enhance outcomes in multidisciplinary chronic pain management groups?

Bliokas, Vida V., Cartmill, Tania K., Nagy, Barbara J.·2007·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

Objectives Graded exposure in vivo (GEXP) treatment has been successfully used to reduce levels of pain-related fear and disability in some chronic pain patients, but its effectiveness has not been evaluated in general clinical settings using group-design studies. The purpose of this study was to determine if the systematic incorporation of GEXP into a multidisciplinary chronic pain management group (PMG) treatment program would result in better treatment outcomes than usual PMG treatment. Methods One hundred forty-three chronic pain patients who were assessed as suitable for an outpatient multidisciplinary chronic PMG program were randomly allocated to 3 experimental conditions; usual PMG, PMG incorporating systematic graded exposure, and wait-list control. Results The clinical outcomes of the 2 treatment conditions were not significantly different, suggesting that the systematic incorporation of GEXP into a multidisciplinary PMG program did not result in better treatment outcomes than usual PMG treatment. Both group treatment programs were associated with significant treatment effects when compared with the wait-list control on measures of pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, pain self-efficacy, activity level, and depression. No treatment effects were found on self-report measures of pain disability or anxiety. Discussion The addition of systematic graded exposure into a multidisciplinary chronic pain management program did not result in better clinical outcomes th…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0b013e31803685dc

Cites

60 of 60 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

2 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bliokas, V. V., Cartmill, T. K., & Nagy, B. J.
Affiliations
Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (AU)
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2007-05
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
361-374
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2071232948
Cited by
22
References
62
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
chronic pain, multidisciplinary pain management, group therapy, fear of pain, pain self-efficacy, pain intensity, depression, activity level, pain-related disability, anxiety
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety, Chronic Disease, Combined Modality Therapy, Depression, Desensitization, Psychologic, Disability Evaluation, Double-Blind Method, Fear, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Pain Clinics

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