Cited by 157Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationDigital Mental Health InterventionsPain Management and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 46 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

An Online Self-help CBT Intervention for Chronic Lower Back Pain

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Research has shown that cognitive and behavioral therapies can effectively improve quality of life in chronic pain patients. Unfortunately, many patients lack access to cognitive and behavioral therapy treatments. We developed a pilot version of an interactive online intervention to teach self-management skills for chronic lower back pain, a leading cause of disability and work absenteeism. The objective of this randomized, controlled trial was to evaluate its efficacy. METHODS: Individuals with chronic lower back pain were recruited over the Internet, screened by phone, and randomly assigned to receive access to the intervention (Wellness Workbook; WW) either immediately (intervention group) or after a 3-week delay (wait-list control). Participants (n=141, 83% female, 23% minority) were asked to complete the WW over 3 weeks. Self-report measures of pain, disability, disabling attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy for pain control, and mood regulation were completed at baseline, week 3, and week 6. RESULTS: Controlling for baseline individual differences in the outcome measures, multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that, at week 3, the intervention group scored better than the wait-list control group on all outcomes, including pain severity ratings. At week 6, after both groups had been exposed to the WW, there were no differences between groups. DISCUSSION: Use of this pilot intervention seems to have had positive effects on a number of pain-related outcomes, including disability. Future research will evaluate the effectiveness of the completed intervention, with particular attention to quality of life and disability.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This randomized wait-list controlled trial found that a 3-week online self-help CBT program (Wellness Workbook) improved pain-related beliefs, self-efficacy, catastrophizing, fear avoidance, and disability in adults with chronic lower back pain, but did not reduce pain severity. Between-group differences disappeared by Week 6 after the wait-list group also received the intervention.

Key findings

  • At Week 3, the intervention group scored significantly better than wait-list controls on most outcomes: multivariate main effect \(F(18,109)=4.88, p<.001\). Univariate effects were significant for all measures except SOPA Medical Cure, FABQ Work, and pain severity ratings.
  • Improvements included stronger belief in pain control, less belief in disability/harm from exercise/medication need, better pain self-efficacy and mood regulation self-efficacy, and reduced pain catastrophizing and fear avoidance of physical activity. No significant change was found for pain severity.
  • At Week 6, after both groups had used the workbook, groups were functionally equivalent: \(F(15,101)=0.55, p=.909\).
  • Usage was high: 81% completed all six chapters; participants viewed an average of 153.9 (SD=48.0) of 189 pages and completed 5.3 (SD=1.7) of 6 chapters. The intervention group used the workbook on more days than the wait-list group (\(M=6.8\) vs. \(5.2\), \(p=.005\)).

Methods

  • Design: online randomized wait-list controlled trial. Participants were recruited via Internet bulletin boards and newspaper advertisements, screened by phone, and completed all measures online.
  • Sample: 230 screened, 66 ineligible, 164 eligible, and 141 completed baseline measures. Participants were aged 21–74 years (\(M=42.5\), \(SD=10.3\)); 83% were women; 23% were racial/ethnic minorities; they represented 40 states. Midway through recruitment, minimum age was raised to 40.
  • Intervention and analysis: the Wellness Workbook was a six-chapter, 189-page online CBT self-help program completed over 3 weeks at two chapters per week. Primary outcome was the Survey of Pain Attitudes (SOPA); other measures included FABQ, Negative Mood Regulation Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, adapted Pain Self-efficacy Scale, pain severity, and usability/satisfaction. Hypotheses were tested with MANCOVA controlling for baseline scores, with post-hoc paired t-tests using Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .003.

Limitations

  • The paper states that participants were required to complete at least four of six chapters; those who did not were considered dropouts and were not offered later assessments, so reasons for dropout were lost. Differential attrition occurred, with more wait-list participants dropping out, and more men than women left the study; the sample was primarily women, limiting generalizability.
  • The paper states that little is known about who benefits most from self-help or Internet-based therapies, and that age may affect willingness to engage online. It also notes that a wait-list control does not control for non-specific treatment effects and that an active control is needed.
  • Evident from the text: pain severity was not assessed at Week 6, and follow-up was limited to 6 weeks, so longer-term maintenance of gains was not evaluated.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0b013e31822363db

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

27 Own result · 26 Not checked yet · 17 Own method · 11 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given

Verify all 44 references — free account

Show all 37 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 24
45 of 45
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Cognitive and behavioral techniques for chronic pain have few if any negative side effects and, once learned, can be used by patients nearly anywhere and anytime.

    “These techniques have few if any negative side effects and, once learned, can be used by patients nearly anywhere and anytime.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Therapeutic content of the WW was drawn from established and empirically-supported cognitive and behavioral strategies.

    “Therapeutic content was drawn from established and empirically-supported cognitive and behavioral strategies, including cognitive therapy, behavioral activation, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness-based stress reduction.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Joint Commission requires that pain management plans include non-pharmacological methods of pain control for patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

    “The Joint Commission, which accredits and certifies more than 18000 health care organizations and programs in the United States, specifically requires that pain management plans include non-pharmacological methods of pain control for patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Managing chronic pain, including CLBP, often necessitates both pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies.

    “Managing chronic pain, including CLBP, often necessitates both pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Multidisciplinary treatment for chronic pain (including non-pharmacological treatment) is considered the gold standard by numerous healthcare organizations.

    “although multidisciplinary treatment for chronic pain (which includes non-pharmacological treatment) is now considered the “gold standard” by numerous healthcare organizations”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many people may find seeing a psychologist or mental health practitioner stigmatizing.

    “many people may find seeing a psychologist or mental health practitioner stigmatizing.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Comprehensive or multidisciplinary pain treatment programs may not be accessible for a substantial number of patients, as they tend to be located in large, urban areas and require a high level of commitment.

    “comprehensive or multidisciplinary pain treatment programs may not be accessible for a substantial number of patients, as they tend to be located in large, urban areas and require a high level of commitment (such as daily attendance for several weeks).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Comprehensive or multidisciplinary pain treatment programs are expensive and may not be covered by insurance companies.

    “They are also expensive, and may not be covered by insurance companies.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Seeking external causes/treatments for pain can be common in, and problematic for, persons with CLBP.

    “Because seeking external causes/treatments for pain can be common in, and problematic for, persons with CLBP”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    To be successful, patients need sufficient motivation to make the time to use the materials on their own and sufficient receptiveness to the mind/body treatment rationale.

    “Presumably, to be successful, patients need sufficient motivation to make the time to use the materials on their own and sufficient receptiveness to the mind/body treatment rationale.”
10 of 10

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(139) = -2.15reported p = .034 · recomputed p = .033

    “t(139) = −2.15, p = .034”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 4.02reported p = .045 · recomputed p = .045

    “χ2(1) = 4.02, p = .045”

  • Consistentt(13.2) = 2.6reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .022

    “t(13.2) = 2.60, p = .022”

  • Consistentt(139) = -2.2reported p = .029 · recomputed p = .029

    “t(139) = −2.20, p = .029”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 4.06reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .044

    “χ2(1) = 4.06, p = .044”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 13.29reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1) = 13.29, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 131) = 2.96reported p = .035 · recomputed p = .035

    “F(3, 131) = 2.96, p = .035”

  • ConsistentF(1, 135) = 8.14reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1, 135) = 8.14, p = .005”

  • ConsistentF(18, 109) = 4.88reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(18, 109) = 4.88, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(15, 101) = 0.55reported p = .909 · recomputed p = .905

    “F(15, 101) = 0.55, p = .909”

10 of 10

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 157

Metadata

Authors
Carpenter, K. M., Stoner, S. A., Mundt, J. M., & Stoelb, B.
Affiliations
Talaria (United States) (US)
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2012-01
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
14-22
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066657052
Cited by
157
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R43AR052569)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic low back pain, cognitive behavioral therapy, online self-help intervention, self-management skills, pain-related disability, pain intensity, self-efficacy, mood regulation, digital health interventions
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Online Systems, Pain Measurement, Time Factors, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Multivariate Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Young Adult, Self Report

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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