Cited by 67Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

A randomized trial of a pain management intervention for adults receiving substance use disorder treatment

Open access
Ilgen, Mark A., Bohnert, Amy S. B., Chermack, Stephen, Conran, Carly, Jannausch, Mary, Trafton, Jodie, Blow, Frederic C.·2016·Addiction

Abstract

Background and Aims: Chronic pain is difficult to treat in individuals with substance use disorders and, when not resolved, can have a negative impact on substance use disorder treatment outcomes. This study tested the efficacy of a psychosocial pain management intervention, ImPAT (improving pain during addiction treatment), that combines pain management with content related to managing pain without substance use. Design: Single‐site, parallel‐groups randomized controlled trial comparing ImPAT to a supportive psychoeducational control (SPC) condition; follow‐up assessments occurred at 3, 6 and 12 months. Setting: The Ann Arbor VA Substance Use Disorder treatment program, USA. Participants: Veterans Health Administration patients {n = 129; mean [standard deviation (SD)], age = 51.7 (9.5); 115 of 129 (89%) male; ImPAT (n = 65); SPC (n = 64)}. Intervention: ImPAT combines principles of cognitive–behavioral therapy and acceptance‐based approaches to pain management with content related to avoiding the use of substances as a coping mechanism for pain. The SPC used a psychoeducational attention control treatment for alcoholism modified to cover other substances in addition to alcohol. Measurements: Primary: Pain intensity over 12 months; secondary: pain‐related functioning, frequency of alcohol and drug use over 12 months. Findings: Primary: randomization to the ImPAT intervention versus SPC predicted significantly lower pain intensity {β [standard error (SE)] = −0.71 (0.29); 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.29, −0.12}; secondary: relative to the SPC condition, those who received ImPAT also reported improved pain‐related functioning [β (SE) = 0.27 (0.11); 95% CI = 0.05, 0.49] and lower frequency of alcohol consumption [β (SE) = −0.77; 95% CI = −1.34, −0.20]. No differences were found between conditions on frequency of drug use over follow‐up. Conclusions: For adults with pain who are enrolled in addictions treatment, receipt of a psychological pain management intervention (improving pain during addiction treatment) reduced pain and alcohol use and improves pain‐related functioning over 12 months relative to a matched‐attention control condition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.13349

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Another 4 large trials included an intervention with multiple components.

    “Another 4 large trials included an intervention with multiple components. 37-40”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Intervention and control conditions section describes ImPAT as combining acceptance, cognitive, and behavioral components. Sample recruitment and retention reports 129 participants in the trial, while the Discussion calls its sample size relatively small. The paper therefore supports the multicomponent description, but not the characterization of this trial as large; it does not establish the size or nature of the other three trials. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Of the remaining 4 SUD trials with a medium-term follow-up, a small-to-medium effect on pain reduction from baseline to medium-term follow-up was reported in all.

    “Of the remaining 4 trials with a medium-term followup, 30,39,40,45 although a small-to-medium effect on pain reduction from baseline to medium-term follow-up was reported in all, with 1 reporting a large ES, 30 one trial found this effect was only significant among women participants. 40”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Therapy attendance/Primary outcome passage reports that mean pain intensity in the intervention group fell from 7.1 at baseline to 5.8 across the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups; the Discussion describes the improvement as modest. This supports pain reduction in this trial, but the paper does not report a separate small-to-medium effect size for baseline to the medium-term follow-up. It cannot establish the citing sentence’s finding across all four trials. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among the 10 SUD trials, two evaluated a CBT-based intervention, three included a MBI (one of which involved integrated MBI and ACT), two examined a MCI, one included a pharmacological-based treatment, and 2 involved a body-based intervention.

    “Two trials eval­ uated a CBT-based intervention, 20,23 three included a MBI, 27,28,30 one of which involved integrated MBI and ACT, 30 two examined a MCI, 39,40 one included a phar­ macological-based treatment, 45 and 2 involved a bodybased intervention. 35,36”
  • Fewer days of alcohol use from baseline to follow-up was found in one trial.

    “Fewer days of alcohol use from baseline to follow-up was found in one 39”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. McCracken L. M., Turk D. C. Behavioral and cognitive- behavioral treatment for chronic pain. Spine 2002; 27: 2564-73.
  2. Ilgen M. A., Haas E., Czyz E., Webster L., Sorrell J., Chermack S. Treating chronic pain in individuals with alcohol or drug use disorders. Cogn Behav Pract 2011; 18: 149-60.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ilgen, M. A., Bohnert, A. S. B., Chermack, S., Conran, C., Jannausch, M., Trafton, J., & Blow, F. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
Ilgen, Mark A.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04-15
Volume
111
Issue
8
Pages
1385-1393
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2276196868
Cited by
67
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
Health Services Research and Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
chronic pain, substance use disorders, interventional pain management, cognitive behavioral therapy, veterans, alcohol consumption, substance use, addiction treatment, psychoeducation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Substance-Related Disorders, 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