Cited by 48Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 55 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Effectiveness of psychological interventions for chronic pain on health care use and work absence: systematic review and meta-analysis

Pike, Andrew, Hearn, Leslie, de C Williams, Amanda C.·2016·Pain

Abstract

Psychological interventions for chronic pain and its consequences have been shown to improve mood, disability, pain, and catastrophic thinking, but there has been no systematic review specifically of their effects on health care use or time lost from work as treatment outcomes in mixed chronic pain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies for chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults for these outcomes. We used searches from 2 previous systematic reviews and updated them. Eighteen randomized controlled trials were found that reported health care use (15 studies) and work loss (9 studies) as outcomes. Fourteen studies provided data for meta-analysis. There were moderate effects for psychological interventions compared with active controls, treatment as usual and waiting list controls in reducing health care use, with confidence in the findings. No benefits were found for medication reduction, but with less confidence in this result. Analysis of work loss showed no significant effects of psychological interventions over comparisons, but the use of many different metrics necessitated fragmenting the planned analyses, making summary difficult. The results are encouraging for the potential of routine psychological intervention to reduce posttreatment health care use, with associated cost savings, but it is likely that the range and complexity of problems affecting work necessitate additional intervention over st…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000434

Cites

55 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Adams, 2003, What affects return to work for graduates of a pain management programme with chronic upper limb pain J Occup R, ehabil, 13, 91
  2. Kamper, 2014, Multidisciplinary treatment for back pain., Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 9, CD000963

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pike, A., Hearn, L., & de C Williams, A. C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Pain
Published
2016-04
Volume
157
Issue
4
Pages
777-785
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2192010017
Cited by
42
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
chronic pain, psychological intervention, health care utilization, absenteeism, lost workdays, medication reduction, cost reduction, group psychological intervention
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Delivery of Health Care, 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